tn  tt)e  Ctip  oOtftngtirk 

THE  LIBRARIES 


The  International 

Theological  Library 


EDITORS'  PREFACE 

THEOLOGY  has  made  great  and  rapid  advances 
in  recent  years.  New  lines  of  investigation  have 
been  opened  up,  fresh  light  has  been  cast  upon 
many  subjects  of  the  deepest  interest,  and  the  historical 
method  has  been  applied  with  important  results.  This 
has  prepared  the  way  for  a  Library  of  Theological 
Science,  and  has  created  the  demand  for  it.  It  has  also 
miade  it  at  once  opportune  and  practicable  now  to  se- 
cure the  services  of  specialists  in  the  different  depart- 
Miicnts  of  Theology,  and  to  associate  them  in  an  enter- 
prise which  will  furnish  a  record  of  Theological 
inquiry  up  to  date. 

This  Library  is  designed  to  cover  the  whole  field  of 
Christian  Theology.  Each  volume  is  to  be  complete 
in  itself,  while,  at  the  same  time,  it  will  form  part  of  a 
carefully  planned  whole.  One  of  the  Editors  is  to  pre- 
pare a  volume  of  Theological  Encyclopasdia  which  will 
give  the  history  and  literature  of  each  department,  as 
well  as  of  Theology  as  a  whole. 


The  International  Theological  Library 

The  Library  is  intended  to  form  a  series  of  Text- 
Books  for  Students  of  Theology. 

The  Authors,  therefore,  aim  at  conciseness  and  com- 
pactness of  statement.  At  the  same  time,  they  have  in 
view  that  large  and  increasing  class  of  students,  in  other 
departments  of  inquiry,  who  desire  to  have  a  systematic 
and  thorough  exposition  of  Theological  Science.  Tech- 
nical matters  will  therefore  be  thrown  into  the  form  of 
notes,  and  the  text  will  be  made  as  readable  and  attract- 
ive as  possible. 

The  Library  is  international  and  interconfessional.  It 
will  be  conducted  in  a  catholic  spirit,  and  in  the 
interests  of  Theology  as  a  science. 

Its  aim  will  be  to  give  full  and  impartial  statements 
both  of  the  results  of  Theological  Science  and  of  fhe 
questions  which  are  still  at  issue  in  the  different 
departments. 

The  Authors  will  be  scholars  of  recognized  reputation 
in  the  several  branches  of  study  assigned  to  them.  They 
will  be  associated  with  each  other  and  with  the  Editors 
in  the  effort  to  provide  a  series  of  volumes  which  may 
adequately  represent  the  present  condition  of  investi- 
gation, and  indicate  the  way  for  further  progress. 

Charles  A.  Briggs 
Stewart  D.  F.  S almond 


The  International  Theological  Library 


ARRANGEMENT  OF  VOLUMES  AND  AUTHORS 

THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP/EDI A.  By  Chari.es  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
D.Litt.,  Professor  of  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Symbolics,  Union 
Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 

AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LITERATURE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTA- 
MENT. By  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew 
and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford.  {^Revised  and  Enlarged  Edition. 

CANON  AND  TEXT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  By  FRANCIS 
Crawford  Burkitt,  M.A.,  Norrisian  Professor  of  Divinity,  University 
of  Cambridge. 

OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY.  By  Hexry  Preserved  S.mith,  D.D., 
sometime  Professor  of  Biblical  History,  Amherst  College,  Mass. 

[AVti'  Ready. 

CONTEMPORARY     HISTORY     OF    THE     OLD     TESTAMENT.      By 

Fr.\ncis  Brown,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  D.Litt.,  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Union 
Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 

THEOLOGY    OF   THE    OLD    TESTAMENT.       By    A.    B.    DAVIDSON, 

D.D.,  LL.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  Hebrew,  New  College,  Edinburgh. 

{^A'ow  Ready. 

AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LITERATURE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA- 
MENT. By  Rev.  James  Moffatt,  B.D.,  Minister  United  Free  Church, 
Dundonald,  Scotland. 

CANON  AND  TEXT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  By  Casp.\r  Rene 
Gregory,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  New  Testament  Exegesis  in  the 
University  of  Leipzig.  \_N(ru.'  Ready. 

THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  By  WiLLlAM  Sand.vy,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Lady 
J.Iargaret  Professor  of  Divinity  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 

A    HISTORY    OF  CHRISTIANITY    IN    THE    APOSTOLIC    AGE.      By 

Arthur  C,  McGiffert,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Church  History,  Union  Theo- 
lou^ical    Seminary,  New  York.  [A>:<:'  Ready. 

CONTEMPORARY     HISTORY     OF    THE     NEW    TESTAMENT.      By 

FivANK  C.  Porter,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Biblical  Theolog}^  Yale  University, 
New  Haven,   Conn. 

THEOLOGY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  By  George  B.  STEVENS, 
D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  Systematic  Theologj',  Yale  University,  New 
Haven,  Conn.  [A^ow  Ready, 

BIBLICAL  ARCHAEOLOGY.  By  G.  BUCHANAN  Gray,  D.D.,  Professor 
of  Hebrew,  Mansfield  College,  Oxford. 

THE  ANCIENT  CATHOLIC  CHURCH.  By  Robert  Rainy,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  sometime  Principal  of  New  College,  Edinburgh.  \_A'ow  Ready. 

THE  EARLY  LATIN  CHURCH.  By  Charles  BiGG,  D.D.,  Regius  Pro- 
fessor of  Church  History,  University  of  Oxford. 


The  International  Theological  Library 


THE  LATER  LATIN  CHURCH.  By  E.  W.  Watso.v,  M.A.,  Professor 
of  Church  History,  King's  College,  London. 

THE  GREEK  AND  ORI  ENTAL  CHURCHES.  By  W.  F.  Adexky,D.D., 
Principal  of  Independent  College,  Manchester. 

THE  REFORWATtON.  By  T.  M.  LINDSAY,  D.D.,PriTicrpal  of  the  United 
Free  College,  Glasgow.  [2  vols.     Xcnu  Ready. 

CHRISTIANITY  IN  LATIN  COUNTRIES  SINCE  THE  COUNCIL  OF 
TRENT.    By  PAUL  Sabatiek,  D.Litt. 

SYWBOLICS.  By  CHARLE9  A.  BriggS,  D.D.,  D.Lht.,  Professor  of 
Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Symbolics,  Union  Theological  Seminary, 
New  York. 

HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAn  DOCTRIHE.  By  G.  P.  FiSHER,.  D.D., 
LL.  D. ,  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  Yale  University,  New  Haven, 
Conn.  \_Revised  and  Enlarged  Edition. 

GHHFSTIAN  INSTITUTIONS.  By  A.  V.  G.  Allen^,  D.D.,  Professor  of 
Ecclesiastical  History,  Protestant  Episcopal  Dh-inity  School,  Cambridge, 
Mass.  '  {Now  Ready. 

PHILOSOPHY  OF  RELIGION.   By  ROBERT  FLINT,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  som«- 

time  Professor  of   Divinity  in  the  University  of  Edinburgh. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  RELIGIONS.  By  Georgb  F.  Moore,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
Professor  in  Harvard  University. 

APOLOGETICS.  By  A.  B.  BRUCE,  D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  New 
Testament  Exegesis,  Free  Chureh  College,  Glasgow. 

\_Revised and  Enlarged  Edition. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD.  By  William  N.  Clarke,  D.D.,  Professor 
of  Systematic  Theology,  HamiltoiL  Theological  Seminary. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  MAN.  By  William  P.  Patersox,  D.D.,  Professor 
of  Divinity,  University  of  Edinburgh. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OFCHRIST.  By  H.  R.  MACKINTOSH,  Ph.D.,  Professor 
of  Systematic  Theology,  New  College,  Edinburgh. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  SALVATION.  By  GEORGE  B.  Ste- 
vens, D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Y'ale  University. 

\N(rw  Ready. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE.  By  WlLLIANf  Adams 
Brown,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York. 

CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  By  Newman  Smvth,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  Congrega- 
tional Church,  New  Haven.  [Rernsed  and  Enlarged  Edition. 

THE    CHRISTIAN    PASTOR    AND   THE    WORKING    CHURCH.      By 

Washington  Gladden,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  Congregational  Church,  Columbus, 
Ohio.  [^^<^  Ready. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  PREACHER.  [AMtAor  to  be  announced  laUr. 

RABBINICAL  LITERATURE.  By  S.  SCHECHTER,  ALA.,  President  of 
the  Jewish  Theological  Seminary,  New  York  City. 


Zbc  3nteniattonal  ^bcclogtcal  Xibrar)g« 

EDITED   BY 

CHARLES   A.   BRIGGS,  D.D.,  D.LlTT., 

Graduate  Professor  of  Theological  Encyclopcedia  and  Symbolics,  Union  Tkeolcgical 
Seminary,  New  York; 


The  Late  STEWART  D.  F.  SALMOND,  D.D., 

Principal,  and  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology  and  New  Testament  Exegesis, 
United  Free  Church  College,  Aberdeen. 


THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES. 
By   WALTER  F.    ADENEY,   M.A.,   D.D. 


'  International  Theological   Library 
THE 

GREEK   AND  EASTERN 
CHURCHES 


n 


WALTER  F.  ADENEY,  MA.,  D.D. 

FSINOIFAL  OP   LA  NC  A  SHIRK   COLLKGB 
HAT^CHESTSB 


NE7/   'iORK 

CHARLES   SCRl!_F.KrEF."S  SONS 

1908 


5l-Hlb-3( 


335.4- 


PREFACE 


This  book  is  divided  into  two  Parts.  In  the  First  Part 
I  have  traced  the  history  of  the  main  body  of  the  Church 
throughout  the  Eastern  provinces  of  Christendom,  until  by 
losing  one  limb  after  another  this  is  seen  to  become  more 
and  more  limited  in  area,  although  still  claiming  to  be  the 
one  orthodox  Church.  In  the  Second  Part  I  have  taken 
up  the  stories  of  the  separate  Churches.  In  order  to  do 
this  intelligibly  I  have  found  it  necessary  to  go  back  in 
each  case  as  far  as  possible  to  the  particular  Church's  origin. 
Since  that  was  usually  some  controversy  of  the  older  Church 
which  was  discussed  in  the  first  part  of  the  volume,  the 
consequence  has  been  a  certain  amount  of  repetition.  But 
I  have  deemed  it  better  to  say  the  same  thing  twice  over — 
first  in  the  general  history  and  then  in  the  local — than  to 
leave  either  of  them  seriously  incomplete.  Besides,  the 
story  is  not  just  the  same  when  viewed  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  local  branch  that  it  was  when  it  first  appeared  in 
the  course  of  the  main  history. 

If  there  is  any  special  characteristic  of  this  book  to 
which  I  would  desire  to  lay  claim,  it  is  an  honest  endeavour 
to  do  justice  to  all  parties.  Now  that  the  heat  of  con- 
troversy has  subsided  and  the  dust  of  battle  settled,  it 
should  be  possible  to  take  a  calm  and  clear  view  of  the 
facts,  with  a  full  recognition  of  all  that  was  excellent  in 
various  bodies  of  Christians  who  in  their  own  day  mutually 
anathematised  one  another. 

I  have  set  at  the  head  of  each  of  the  chapters  two 
lists  of  books.     Those  marked  (a)  are  principal  original 


VI  PREFACE 

authorities ;  those  indicated  by  (b)  are  more  or  less  modern 
works,  often  selected  out  of  a  large  number,  as  in  my  own 
judgment  the  books  most  likely  to  be  of  service  to  the 
student. 

I  desire  to  express  my  thanks  to  Professor  Gwatkin  for 
very  kindly  reading  the  proofs  of  the  chapters  on  the  Ariau 
period,  and  for  his  learned  and  acute  suggestions  in  con- 
versation with  reference  to  this  and  other  parts  of  the 
history ;  to  the  Eev.  E.  Eubank  for  the  loan  of  a  number 
of  works  from  his  excellent  collection  of  books  on  the 
Eastern  Church ;  to  the  Greek,  Coptic,  and  Armenian 
priests  and  Protestant  pastors  and  missionaries  with  whom 
I  have  had  conversations  concerning  the  present  condition 
of  the  Eastern  Churches ;  to  the  Librarians  and  Authorities 
of  the  British  Museum,  the  John  Ryland's  Library,  the 
Dr.  William's  Library,  and  my  own  College  Library  for 
their  unfailing  kindness  and  courtesy  in  putting  at  my 
disposal  the  many  books — often  from  out-of-the-way  regions 
of  literature — that  it  has  been  necessary  to  consult  in  an 
attempt  to  cover  a  vast  field  of  history,  much  of  which  is 
little  known  and  but  rarely  traversed. 

Lastly,  I  record  my  indebtedness  to  the  careful  proof- 
reading and  valuable  literary  criticism  of  my  wife  while 
this  book  was  passing  through  the  press. 

WALTER  F.  ADENEY. 
Lancashire  Collegb, 
September  1908. 


CONTENTS 


PAOBS 

Introduction        •■•••••         1-12 


PART  T 

THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  EMPIRE 

DIVISION  I 
THE  AGE  OF  THE  FATHERS 

CHAPTER  I 
Ohristiakity  in  the  East  under  the  Pagan  Emperors 

The  Apostolic  Age — The  Attitude  of  Rome — The  Persecutions — 

Extent  of  the  Church  in  the  East         ....         13-26 

CHAPTER  n 
Constantine  the  Great 

Accession  of  Constantine — Founding  of  Constantinople — Conver- 
sion of  Constantine — The  Edict  of  Milan— New  Relations 
of  Church  and  State  ......        27-40 

CHAPTER  HI 
Arianism 

An  Eastern  Heresy — Its  Origin  in  Antioch — The  Arian  System — 
Arius  at  Alexandria — The  Emperor's  influence  as  Peace- 
maker— The  Council  of  Nicsea — The  Nicene  Creed      .  .        41-57 


vm  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  IV 

Thk  Laif.r  Akian  Period 

PAGKS 

Constantius — Athanasius — Julian— His  I'agau  Church  and  Theo- 
logy— The  Persecution  by  Valeus— The  Semi-Arians  .  .        58-70 

CHAPTER  V 
The  Cappadocian  Theologians 

The  most  brilliant  Literary  Period  of  tlie  Greek  Church — Basil — 

Gregory  Nazianzen — Gregory  of  Nyssa — Apolliuaris  .  .         71-84 

CHAPTER  VI 

The  Movements  that  led  to  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 

Theodosius  the  Great  —  Chrysostom  —  The  Christological  Con- 
troversies —  Nestorianism  — ■  The  Council  of  Epliesus  — 
Eutychianism — The  Council  of  Chalcedon       ,  .  .       85-101 

CHAPTER  VII 
The  Monophysite  Troubles 

The  Monophysite  Idea — The  Theotol-os— Timothy  jElurus — 
Timothy  Salofaciolus — Peter  the  Fuller — Zeno's  Hcneticon — 
The  Acephali  .......     102-116 

CHAPTER  VIII 
The  Later  Christological  Controversies 

Justinian  and  Theodora — "The  Three  Chapters" — The  Mono- 
thelete  Controversy — Severus  of  CouNtantinople — Cyrus  and 
Sophronius— The  Edhesis— The  Type— The  Sixth  General 
Council  (Third  Constantinople)  .  .  .  .117-131 

CHAPTER  IX 
Organisation  and  Worship 

Bishops  —  Metropolitans  —  Patriarchs— The  new  Constantinople 
Patriarchate  —  Gregory  the  Great — John  the  Faster  —  The 
Doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  ....     132-146 


CONTENTS  U. 


CHAPTER  X 

Eastern  Monasticism 

PAGES 

(1)  General  Asceticism — (2)  Specific  Asceticism — (3)  Anchoritism — 

Palladius— (4)  Ccenobitism — (5)  Regulated  Monasteries  .     147-159 


DIVISION   II 
THE  MOHAMMEDAN  PERIOD 

CHAPTER  I 

The  Rise  and  Spread  of  Mohammedanism 

No  Middle  Ages  in  the  Oriental  Churches — Mohammed — The 
Doctrines  of  Islam — Heraclius  and  his  Victories — The  Advance 
of  the  Arabs — Treatment  of  Christians  by  Mohammedans      .     160-173 

CHAPTER  II 
Byzantine  Art 

Byzantine  and  Gothic  Architecture — The  Basilica — St.  Sophia — 

Icons     ........     174-186 

CHAPTER  III 
The  Iconoclastic  Reforms 

Revival    of   the    Empire — Leo   the   Isaurian — Iconoclasm — Con- 

stantine  Coprouicus — The  Abbot  Stephen        .  .  .     187-200 

CHAPTER  IV 

The  Restoration  of  Image  Worship 

Leo  the  Armenian — Constantine  Porphyrogenitus — The  Empress 
Irene  —  Seventh  General  Council  (Second  Niciea)  —  Leo's 
Reforms — John  of  Damascus — Theodore  of  Studium       .         .     201-215 


X  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  V 
The  Paulicians 

PAGES 

The  Origin  of  the  Name — The  Key  of  Triith — Constantine  of 
Msnanalis  or  "Silvanus" — Paul  the  Armenian — Sergius — 
The  Empress  Theodora — Paulicians  in  Thrace — The  Euchites 
—The  Bogomilea  ......     216-228 


CHAPTER  VI 

The  Great  Schism 

The  Cleavage  of  Christendom — Causes  :  (1)  Difference  of  Race  ; 
(2)  Separation  of  the  two  Empires  ;  (3)  Rivalry  of  Patriarchs  ; 
(4)  The  Filioque  Clause— The  Final  Rupture  .  .  .     229-241 


CHAPTER  VII 

The  Crusades 

Causes  provoking  the  Crusades — Urban  ii.  and  Peter  the  Hermit — 
The  First  Crusade — Bernard  of  Clairvaux  and  the  Second 
and  Third  Crusades — The  Fourth  Crusade — A  Western  Invasion 
of  Greek  Territory — The  Latin  ' '  Empire  "  of  Constantinople  .     242-255 

CHAPTER  VIII 

The  Greek  Church  at  the  Fall  of  the  Byzantine  Empire 

Decay  of  Byzantine  Empire — The  Latin  "Emperors  " — Restoration 
of  Byzantine  Empire  by  Michael — The  Patriarch  Arsenius — 
Negotiations  with  the  Papacy— Constantine  Palteologus — 
Mohammed  ii. — Fall  of  Constantinople  ...     256-272 

CHAPTER  IX 

Life  and  Letters  in  the  Byzantine  Chubch 

Echoes  of  old  Controversies — Church  Government — The  Liturgies 
of  St.  Basil  and  St.  Chrysostom — Service  Books — The  Byzantine 
Historians — Later  Byzantine  Writers — The  Story  oi  Bar  loam 
and  Joshaphat  —  Greek  Hymns  —  The  Monks  of  Mount 
Atkos — Religious  and  Moral  Condition  of  the  Church  .     273-291 


CONTENTS  XI 

PART    II 
THE  SEPARATE  CHURCHES 

PAQEB 

Introduction  to  the  Separate  Churches       .  .  •  «    292-294 

DIVISION   I 

EARLY  CHRISTIANITY  OUTSIDE  THE  EMPIRE 

Early  Christianity  in  Persia — Persecution  under  Sapor — Couversion 

of  the  Goths— Ulfilas    ......     295-308 

DIVISION   II 

THE  MODERN  GREEK  CHURCH 

CHAPTER  I 

Cyril  Litoar  and  thk  Reformation 

The  Janissaries — The  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  under  the  Sultan 
— Contact  with  Lutherans — Cyril  Lucar — His  Confession  of 
Faith — Cyril  at  Constantinople — His  Attempt  at  a  Reforma- 
tion      .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     309-324 

CHAPTER  n 
The  Latbe  Greek  Church  xtndee  the  Turks 

Patriarch  and  Bishops — Venetian  Conquests  —  Revival  of 
Greece — The  Philikd  Hetairia — Massacre  of  Turks  in  the 
Morea — Execution  of  the  Patriarch  Gregorioa — The  Inde- 
pendent Church  of  Greece       .....     325-339 

CHAPTER  III 

The  Outlying  Branches  of  the  Greek  Church 

Cyi>rus — Georgia — Bulgaria — Servia — Bosnia  and  Herzegovina     .     340-354 

DIVISION  III 

THE  RUSSIAN  CHURCH 

CHAPTER  I 

The  Origin  of  Christianity  in  Russia 

The  Sclavs — Early  Missions— The  Princess  Olga— Vladimir        .     355-370 


xii  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  II 

TiiK  MoNROLiAN  Invasion  of  Russia 

PACKS 

Spread  of  the  Gospel  in   Russia — A  Tennioiary  Breach  with  Cou- 

stantinople — The  Mongol  Invasion — Ertect  on  Russia  .     371-384 

CHAPTER  III 

Revival  of  Russia 

Reformation  of  Church  Discipline — Poland  and  Lithuania — 
Isidore  —  Russia  and  the  New  Age  —  The  Metrojwlitan 
Zosimus — Ivau  the  Terrible    .  .  .  •  .     385-403 

CHAPTER  IV 

The  Patuiarchate 

Origin  of  Patriarchate  of  Moscow  —  Attempts  to  win  Russia 
to  Rome — The  false  Dmitri  —  Philaret  —  Peter  Mogila's 
"Confession  of  Faith"' — The  Patriarch  Nicon  .  .     404-419 

CHAPTER  V 
Peter  the  Great  and  the  Holy  Synod 

The  Life  and  Character  of  Peter — Reorganisation  of  the  Empire 
— The  Holy  Syuod — The  Conservative  Reaction — Condition 
of  Russian  Church      ......     420-433 

CHAPTER  VI 
The  Orthodox  Church  in  Modern  Russia 

Catherine    ii.  —  Seraphim    and    Photius  —  Alexander    and   the 

Emancipation  of  the  Serfs      .....     434-440 

CHAPTER  VII 
Russian  Sects 

Raskolniks— "Old  Believers  "  — The  Popoftsky  —  The  Bef- 
popoftsky — The  Philippoftsky — The  Theodosians — The  Po- 
mortsky  —  The  Jumpers  —  The  Khlysty  —  The  Skoptsy  — 
The  Molokans— The  Doukhobors— The  Stimdists — Count 
Tolstoi 441-458 


CONTENTS  Xlii 

■  DIVISION  IV 
THE  SYRIAN  AND  ARMENIAN  CHURCHES 

CHAPTER  I 
Early  Syrian-  Christiaxity 

PA0E8 

The  Churches  of  the  Euphrates  Valley — Four  separating  In- 
fluences— The  Legend  of  Abgar — Palut — Tatian — Bardaisan 
— The  Homilies  of  Aphraates — The  Acts  of  Thomas  .  .     459-i76 

CHAPTER  II 

The  Syrian  Nestor  tans 

The  Nestorians  at  Edessa — Rabbulas — The  Catholicos — Thomas 
of  ilarca's  Book  of  the  Governors — Syrian  Monasticism — The 
Monastery  of  Beth   'Abhe       .  .  .  •  .     477-492 

CHAPTER  III 
The  Later  Nestorians,  the  Chaldeans,  and  the  Jacobites 

The  Nestorians  under  the  Caliphate — Mohammedan  Persecu- 
tions—  The  Jacobites — Jacob  al  Bardai  —  Persecution  of 
Syrian  Monophysites  —  The  Tetratheists  —  Literature  of  the 
Syrian  Church  .  .  ....     493-509 

CHAPTER  IV 
The  Nestorians  of  the  Far  East 

Syrian   Missions  —  The  Ads   of  Thomas  —  India  —  The  Syrian 

Church  in  Travancore — Old  Crosses  .  ,  ,  ,     510-522 

CHAPTER  V 

Later  Eastern  Christianity 

The  Portuguese  in  India — Xavier — The  Inquisition  at  Goa— 
The  Synod  of  Diamper  —  The  Dutch  at  Cochin  —  Syrian 
Christianity  in  China  —  Syrian  Christianity  in  Tartary  — 
Roman  Catholic  and  Protestant  Missions      .  .  .     523-538 


I 


XIV  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  VI 

The  Armenian  Church 

PAon 

The  Legendary  Period — Gregory  the  Illumiiiator — Mesrob — The 

Council  of  Tiben — The  Council  of  Caraiia — Severance  from 
the  Greek  Church — The  Armenian  Constitution — Russian 
Possessions  in  Armenia — The  Massacres        .  ,  .     539-562 


DIVISION  V 
THE  COPTIC  AND  ABYSSINIAN  CHURCHES 

CHAPTER  I 
Okioin  and  Early  History  of  thb  Coptic  Church 

The  Copts — Origin  of  Christianity  in  Egypt — Its  Character- 
istics —  Alexandrian  Opposition  to  Nestorianism  —  The 
Monks — Monophysite  Schism .....     553-571 

CHAPTER  II 

The  Persian  and  Arab  Conquests 

The  Copts  during  the  Invasions — The  Failure  of  Heraclius  as  a 
Ruler — The  Mohammedan  Invasion — The  National  Patriarch 
Benjamin — The  Melchite  Patriarch  Cyril — The  Mukaukas — 
The  Mohammedan  Settlement  ....     572-584 

CHAPTER  III 

The  Copts  under  the  Caliphate 

Coptic  Art — John  Semundfeus — A  Friendly  Gnlipliate — Persecu- 
tion— The  Scandal  of  Simony — The  Fatiniite  Period  .     585-602 

CHAPTER  IV 

The  Turkish  Period 

Turkish  Sultans — The  Copts  during  the  Crusades — The  Dis- 
pute  about  Confessing  over  a  Censer — Saladiu — The  Mame- 
lukes— The  Copts  in  Modern  Times  ....     603-614 

CHAPTER  V 

Abyssinian  Christianity 

Ethiopia — Fruraentius  and  vEdesius — The  Vanishing  of  Christ- 
ianity from  Nubia — Isolation  of  Al)yssinia  —  Portuguese 
Embassy — Bruce's  Travels — Recent  Events   .  .  .     615-626 

Index         ...,,...  627 


THE 
GEEEK  AND  EASTERN  CHURCHES 


THE 

GREEK  AND   EASTERN  CHURCHES 


INTRODUCTION 

An  adequate  and  independent  history  of  the  Greek  and 
Eastern  Churches  would  begin  with  the  origin  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  trace  from  its  commencement  the  development 
of  the  faith,  which  arose  in  the  East  and  flourished  for  a 
considerable  time  most  conspicuously  in  Syria,  Asia  Minor, 
Greece,  and  Egypt.  But  since  two  previous  volumes  of 
this  Series  ^  have  been  devoted  to  the  earlier  periods  of 
General  Church  History,  the  present  writer  is  relieved  from 
the  necessity  of  treating  the  first  three  centuries  with  any 
fulness  of  detail  Here  the  only  requisite  will  be  to  take 
a  rapid  survey  of  the  story  viewed  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  East,  remembering  that  for  our  present  purpose  the 
centre  of  gravity  is  at  Antioch,  Ephesus,  or  Alexandria, 
rather  than  at  Eome  or  Carthage.  When,  however,  we 
come  to  the  fourth  century  the  scale  of  proportion  must 
be  reversed,  and  subjects  which  the  exigencies  of  space  only 
permitted  to  be  discussed  with  comparative  brevity  in  the 
volume  on  The  Ancient  Catholic  Church  will  now  demand 
a  somewhat  more  extensive  exposition.  The  age  of  the 
great  Fathers,  with  its  essentially  Oriental  controversies 
on  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity  and  the  Person  of  Christ, 
is  by  far  the  most  important  epoch  in  the  whole  history 

*  McGifFert,  History  of  Christianity  in  the  Apostolic  Age  ;  Rainy,  The 
Ancient  Catholic  Church. 


2  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

of  Eastern  Christendom.  This  age  was  the  crown  and 
flower  of  the  earlier  period,  and  it  produced  the  seeds  of 
nearly  all  that  was  of  vital  interest  in  succeeding  ages. 
With  the  exception  of  Hosius  of  Cordova,  whose  activity 
was  chiefly  witnessed  in  the  East,  and  Hilary  of  Poitiers, 
the  solitary  theologian  of  first  rank  who  discussed  the 
Trinitarian  problem  in  the  West  during  the  fourth  century, 
all  the  great  writers  and  teachers  of  that  wonderful  age  of 
theological  dialectics  were  in  the  Greek  Chui'ch.  Ambrose 
at  the  end  of  this  century,  and  Augustine  and  Jerome  in 
the  early  part  of  the  following  century,  restored  the 
balance  to  the  West ;  but  by  their  time  ominous  signs  of 
the  coming  severance  between  Eastern  and  Western 
Christendom  were  already  appearing,  and  each  branch  was 
now  becoming  more  and  more  distinct  and  separate  in  its 
life  and  history. 

When  we  look  back  at  the  early  period  of  Catholic 
unity  we  cannot  but  recognise  the  preponderance  of  its 
Oriental  characteristics,  t  Externally  regarded,  in  its  origin 
and  primitive  development,  Christianity  must  be  reckoned 
an  Eastern  religion.  In  fulfilling  its  amazing  destiny  it 
quickly  turned  to  the  West  for  its  richest  missionary 
harvests,  for  there  it  found  its  most  fertile  soil,  and  its 
efforts  at  extension  in  the  Farther  East  were  long  compara- 
tively infructuous. 

To-day  it  is  specifically  the  religion  of  the  West,  and 
as  such  at  length  it  is  being  introduced  by  slow  and  pain- 
ful efforts  to  the  ancient  civilisations  of  India  and  China. 
We  know  it  in  a  Latin  or  a  Teutonic  garb,  so  that  its 
original  Eastern  form  is  disguised  by  its  Western  habili- 
ments. Protestant  Christendom  sees  it  in  the  last  of  four 
stages  through  which  it  has  passed,  tlie  first  ])eiug  Aramaic, 
the  second  Greek,  the  third  Latin,  and  the  fourth  Teutonic. 
These  four  stages  may  be  especially  represented  by  the 
primitive  apostles,  tlie  councils  and  creeds,  the  mediaeval 
papal  Church,  and  Martin  Luther  and  Protestantism. 
Now  the  Greek  and  Eastern  Churches  belong  to  the  two 
earliest    of    these    stages,    or    rather,   to    be    more    exact, 


INTRODUCTION  3 

especially  to  the  second ;  foi  even  the  later  Syrian  Church 
was  fundamentally  dependent  on  the  Greek.  But  we 
begin  with  a  thoroughly  Oriental  situation.  Christianity 
sprang  up  out  of  the  soil  of  an  ancient  Semitic  religion. 
The  Judaism  of  the  rabbis  only  represented  the  faded  glory 
of  the  superb  faith  proclaimed  by  the  ancient  prophets, 
and  the  gospel  realised  one  of  those  prophets'  predictions 
by  appearing  as  "  a  root  out  of  a  dry  ground."  Still,  it 
needed  its  soil,  impoverished  by  neglect  and  ill-usage  as 
this  was  We  cannot  regard  the  fact  that  Jesus  was  a 
Jew  as  due  to  a  freak  of  nature  or  a  caprice  of  Providence. 
Then,  all  the  apostles  were  Jews ;  so  apparently  were  all 
the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  except  one,  and  probably 
he  was  a  proselyte.  The  gospel  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
was  first  preached  in  Aramaic,  in  tire  local  Syrian  dialect 
spoken  at  the  time  by  our  Lord  and  His  disciples.  The 
earliest  record  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus  Christ  of  which 
we  have  any  knowledge  was  written  in  Hebrew,  or 
Aramaic.^  The  Scriptures  used  by  the  primitive  Churches 
and  appealed  to  for  the  authentication  of  their  message 
consisted  of  Hebrew  writings ;  and  although  the  Old 
Testament  was  commonly  read  in  a  Greek  translation,  its 
Semitic  ideas  and  imagery  coloured  the  whole  presentation 
of  Christian  truth.  In  the  present  day,  not  only  our 
theology,  our  sermons,  our  prayers  and  hymns,  but  our 
literature  and  political  oratory  are  steeped  in  Biblical 
Orientalism.  ¥/hen,  as  is  often  the  case  in  his  most 
pathetic  scenes,  Sir  Walter  Scott  adopts  the  language  of 
the  Bible,  or  when  one  of  our  statesmen  graces  his  diction 
by  drawing  from  that  "  well  of  English  undcfiled,"  the 
Authorised  Version  of  the  English  Bible,  it  is  generally 
some  Semitism  that  gives  its  choice  flavour  to  the 
passage. 

Directly  we  pass  on  to  the  second  stage  of  develop- 
ment, the  Greek,  we  have  an  immensely  enlarged  field  of 
observation.       The   Semitic    period    was    quite    temporary 
and     provincial,    although,    as     the     earliest,    it     left     its 
^  Eusebius,  Hist.  Ecd.  iii.  39. 


4  THE   GREKK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

mark  on  all  that  followed.  But  no  sooner  was  tlie  gospel 
launched  on  the  sea  of  the  great  world's  life  than  it 
passed  into  a  Hellenic  form,  being  at  once  expounded  in 
the  Greek  language  and  becoming  gradually  shaped  in  the 
mould  of  Greek  thought.  It  is  probable  that  Jesus  Christ 
knew  the  popular  Greek  dialect  of  His  day,  although  it  is 
nearly  certain  that  He  habitually  spoke  in  Aramaic,  the 
language  of  His  home  and  people.  The  apostles  must 
have  preached  in  Greek  when  they  passed  the  narrow 
bounds  of  Palestine.  Paul,  Barnabas,  Stephen,  Philip 
the  Evangelist,  Apollos,  Timothy — in  fact,  all  the  early 
missionaries  of  wliom  we  know  anything,  except  the 
Twelve,  James,  and  Mark — were  Hellenists,  or  even  in  some 
cases  actually  Greeks  by  race,  such  as  Luke  and  Titus. 
All  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  written  in  Greek, 
in  spite  of  the  fact  that  two  of  them  seem  to  have  been 
intended  for  Jews,  and  one  was  addressed  to  Eome  and 
another  to  a  Eoman  colony.  All  the  writings  of  the 
Apostolic  Fathers  are  in  the  Greek  language,  although  they 
originated  in  places  so  far  apart  as  Eome,  Asia  Minor, 
and  probably  Egypt  and  Syria.  Greek  was  the  literary 
language  of  the  Church  in  the  West  as  well  as  in  the  East 
down  to  the  end  of  the  second  century,  except  in  North 
Africa  where  Latin  was  used,  and  in  the  Valley  of  the 
Euphrates  where  Syriac  was  employed.  Until  we  reach 
the  third  century  we  meet  with  no  Latin  writing  of 
importance  in  the  Eoman  Church.^  Hippolytus,  whose 
martyrdom  is  dated  between  a.d.  233  and  239,  wrote  in 
Greek.  The  early  bishops  of  Eome  bear  Greek  names. 
Justin  Martyr,  a  native  of  Samaria,  but  a  travelling 
evangelist  who  carried  his  mission  as  far  as  Eome  where 
he  ended  it  by  death,  wrote  his  appeals  to  the  emperors 
and  the  Senate,  as  well  as  his  dialogue  with  a  Jew,  in 
Greek.  In  Gaul  we  have  the  Churches  of  Lyonne  and 
Vienne  sending  an  account  of  the  persecution  they  had 
passed  through  under  Marcus  Aurelius  to  their  brethren 

*  There  is  the  insignificant  anti-gambling  tract  De  Alealaribus  in  Latin, 
for  the  benefit  of  the  uneducated. 


INTRODUCTION  6 

in  the  East  in  the  Greek  language.  Irenseus  their 
bishop  published  his  famous  work  Againfit  all  the  Heresies 
in  Greek.  It  seems  probable  that  Christianity  first  made 
its  way  in  Western  Europe  among  the  Jewish,  Greek,  and 
Syrian  residents — colonists,  merchants,  and  slaves.  We 
know  that  at  Kome  it  first  appeared  in  the  Ghetto 
among  Hellenistic  Jews.  The  Churches  of  Lyonne  and 
Vienna  seem  to  have  sprung  up  in  an  offshoot  from  the 
Greek  colony  at  Marseilles.  Their  famous  bishop  Irenseus 
had  come  to  them  from  Asia  Minor,  and  they  took  care 
to  keep  themselves  in  touch  with  the  Greeks  of  that 
Eastern  region. 

Now  the  importance  of  these  facts  can  scarcely  be 
overestimated,  although  it  has  been  overshadowed  by 
another  series  of  facts.  Church  historians  have  often 
called  attention  to  the  deep  significance  of  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Eoman  Empire  just  before  the  appearance  of 
Christianity  in  the  world.  The  Pax  Eomana  which 
encircled  the  whole  Mediterranean  gave  the  first 
missionaries  freedom  to  travel  and  admitted  of  an 
attentive  hearing  wherever  they  went.  Everywhere  they 
appeared  as  subjects  of  one  vast  empire  preaching  to 
fellow-subjects  of  the  same  empire.  They  were  protected 
from  uprisings  of  fanatical  mobs  by  the  strong,  just 
Eoman  magistracy ;  and  they  could  travel  with  ease  and 
safety  along  the  well-made  and  well-guarded  Eoman  roads. 
Choosing  the  great  towns  for  their  chief  centres  of  work, 
they  found  provincialism  disappearing  before  enlarged 
cosmopolitan  ideas,  and  so  an  atmosphere  in  which  a 
gospel  that  overstepped  the  bounds  of  national  jealousies 
might  most  readily  receive  sympathetic  attention.  More- 
over, from  the  second  century  onwards,  we  see  the  growth 
of  Eoman  law  into  a  strong  body  of  jurisprudence  which 
is  destined  to  combine  with  Christian  doctrine  in  forming 
the  two  fundamental  factors  of  mediaeval  and  modern 
civilisation.  Gradually  the  genius  of  Eome  in  government 
passed  over  from  the  empire  to  the  Church,  and  popes 
came  in  for  the  inheritance  of  the  power  that  had  dropped 


6  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

from  the  enfeebled  hands  of  emperors.  It  is  a  truism 
to  say  that  the  contribution  of  Eome  to  the  development 
— and  subsequent  degeneration — of  the  Church  is  a  factor 
of  immense  importance.^  Nevertheless  it  is  an  unfortunate 
fact  that  reiterated  insistence  on  the  Koman  influence  has 
distracted  attention  from  the  Grecian.  Until  recently  it 
was  supposed  that  the  New  Testament  was  composed  in 
a  peculiar  provincial  and  theological  dialect.  But  the 
discovery  of  contemporary  papyri  at  Oxyrhynchus  and  the 
study  of  inscriptions  found  in  Egypt,  Asia  Minor,  and 
indeed  scattered  over  a  wide  area  of  the  empire,  have 
shown  that  this  "  Hellenistic "  Greek  was  the  common 
language  for  business  documents  and  private  correspond- 
ence— bills  of  lading,  receipts,  family  letters — throughout 
all  those  widely  scattered  regions.  This  is  a  new  and 
convincing  proof  that  the  "  common  dialect "  of  Greek  was 
very  much  more  used  than  had  been  imagined  hitherto. 
It  is  quite  sufficient  to  account  for  the  fact  that  the 
earliest  Christian  literature  is  in  Greek,  and  it  disposes  of 
the  erroneous  idea  that  the  authors  were  following  a 
literary  convention  like  the  mediaeval  monks  in  their  use 
of  Latin.^  They  wrote  in  Greek  simply  because  everybody 
wrote  in  Greek,  whether  in  business  or  in  social  intercourse. 
The  consequences  of  this  fact  are  many  and  various.  In  the 
first  place,  the  Christian  missionaries  found  a  lingua  franca  in 
which  they  could  proclaim  their  message  wherever  they  went, 
at  all  events  on  the  main  roads  which  they  usually  followed, 
and  in  the  large  centres  of  population  where  for  the  most 
part  they  carried  on  their  work.  Thus  the  widespread  use 
of  this  one  language  co-operated  with  the  common  govern- 
ment of  the  one  empire  in  providing  such  conditions  for 
the  dissemination  of  a  universal  faith  as  the  world  had 
never  witnessed  before.  In  the  second  place,  the  fact  that 
this  language  was  Greek  had  as  strong  intensive  effects  on 
the  missionary  work  as  its  extensive  influence  due  to  the 

^  See  Renan,  Hibbert  Lectures  (1880). 

*  See  Deissmau,  Bible  Studies,  passim  ;  Moulton,  Grammar  of  New  Test. 
Cfreek,  vol.  i.  ch.  i.  j  Wellhausen,  Einleitung  in  die  drei  Ersten  Evangelien,  9. 


INTRODUCTION  7 

general  use  of  it  throughout  so  large  a  part  of  the  Eoman 
dominion.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  a  "  dead  language  " 
for  people  who  read  and  speak  intelligently  ;  and  certainly 
in  early  Christian  times,  although  the  splendour  of  the 
classic  period  had  passed,  the  language  in  which  Plato 
wrote,  degenerate  as  it  now  was,  came  into  the  Church 
"  trailing  clouds  of  glory."  For  better  or  for  worse,  Greek 
ideas  invaded  the  Church  under  the  cloak  of  the  Greek 
language.  With  the  more  scholarly  writers  this  was 
allowed  consciously.^ 

Even  St.  Paul  shows  traces  of  the  Hellenic  influence, 
especially  in  his  doctrine  of  the  flesh,  which  was  not  found 
in  purely  Jewish  or  earlier  Christian  teaching,  and  in  the 
language  with  which  he  describes  the  exalted  Christ,  which 
reads  like  an  echo  of  Philo,  as  well  as  in  his  evident 
allusions  to  the  Hellenistic  Book  of  Wisdom.  This 
tendency  is  much  more  apparent  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews.  There  are  traces  of  it  in  the  so-called  "  Epistle 
of  Barnabas."  Most  of  the  earlier  Christian  writers  known 
as  the  Apostolic  Fathers  wrote  simply  and  practically 
with  little  reference  to  the  world  outside.  But  the  Greek 
influence  blossomed  out  in  the  Apologists,  men  who 
made  it  their  business  to  bring  the  gospel  into  contact 
with  the  thought  of  their  age.  Aristides  appeared  in 
Athens  wearing  the  conventional  philosopher's  cloak  ; 
Justin  Martyr  came  to  Christianity  through  Platonism.  and 
he  made  the  first  serious  attempt  to  reconcile  Philosophy 
to  the  Gospel,  by  combining  St.  John's  Logos  with  the 
Logos  of  Philo  and  the  Stoics.  In  Clement  of  Alexandria 
we  have  classic  literary  scholarship,  and  in  his  successor 
Origen  Platonic  philosophy,  brought  over  bodily  into  the 
exposition  of  Christian  truth.  Henceforth  the  elaboration 
of  doctrine  in  the  Church  becomes  a  process  of  applying 
Greek  thought  to  the  elucidation  of  the  data  supplied  by 
the  facts  of  the  gospel  history  and  the  truths  of  Scripture 
and    experience.     Even    the    dialectical    methods    of    the 

'  See  Pfleiderer,  Urchristenthum,  for  an  extreme  view  of  this  fact,  which 
we  musk  admit  while  avoiding  the  danger  of  exaggerating  it. 


8  THE  GREEK   AND   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

sophists  were  adopted  by  the  Christian  theologians,  and 
the  oratorical  services  of  the  rhetoricians  employed  by  the 
Church's  preachers.  Biblical  exegesis  followed  the  lines 
laid  down  by  Alexandrian  givammarians  in  their  interpreta- 
tion of  Homer,  and  the  very  form  of  the  Christian  sermon 
based  on  a  brief  "text,"  which  has  been  stereotyped 
apparently  for  all  time,  is  an  imitation  of  the  sophists' 
cvmningly  elaborated  oration  as  the  development  of  the 
hidden  meaning  of  a  single  line  of  Homer.^ 

The  Grseco-Koman  world  on  which  the  vessel  of  the 
gospel  was  launched  by  the  apostles  and  their  followers 
was  a  seething  ocean   of  restless  life   and  thought,  in  a 
period    of    transition    after    the    old    national    and    racial 
boundaries  had  been  swept  away  and  before  any  tide  had 
been  felt  setting  strongly  in  one  definite  direction.     We 
might  compare  it  to  a  choppy  sea,  broken  by  the  clash  of 
cross  currents  and  tossed  about  by  a  whirl  of  wmds  from 
all   quarters   of    the   compass.     In    literature,   in    art,   in 
philosophy,  and  worst  of  all  in  morals,  it  was  a  decadent 
age;    its    society    was    like    that    which    was    recently 
characterised  among  ourselves   as  fin  de  sUcle.     And  yet, 
while  bestial  gluttony  and  monstrous  vice  ran  riot  among 
the  plutocracy,  no  doubt  there  were  many  innocent  folk 
who  were   living   simple   lives  in  remote   country  places. 
Certainly  not  a  few  in  the  cities  were  wistfully  groping 
after  the  light  of  truth  and  the  power  of  purity.      But  no 
one   clear   answer    rang    out    in    response    to  their   eager 
questioning.     Their  ears  were  assailed  by  a  babel  of  voices. 
The   quest    for   truth   and    goodness   was    baffled    by  the 
many  bewildering  avenues  that  opened  out  before  it ;  and 
seekers  after  the  summum  bonum  were  lost  in  a  vast  maze 
of    ideas.       Philosophy    was    eclectic,    religion    syncretic. 
Both  skimmed  a  wide    surface ;    neither  touched  bottom. 
So  there  was  no  settlement,  no  conclusion.     The  almost 
identical  experience  of  Justin  Martyr  in  the  second  century 
and  Augustine  in  the  fourth,  their  going  from  teacher  to 

1  See  Hatch,  ffibberl.  Lectures :  TJie  Influence  of  Greek  Ideas  and  Usages 
ujion  the  Christian  Church,  Lecture  iv. 


INTRODUCTION  9 

teacher  and  from  school  to  school  but  finding  rest  in  none, 
was  the  inevitable  fate  of  earnest  souls  in  the  centuries 
that  followed  the  break-up  of  the  old  world,  but  had  not 
yet  seen  the  consolidation  of  the  new  world. 

Nevertheless  the  age  was  essentially  constructive. 
The  theoretical  scepticism  of  the  Academy,  the  bold 
unbelief  of  Julius  Cpesar,  and  the  practical  atheism  of 
Nero,  had  given  place  to  a  revival  of  belief  in  the  Unseen. 
This  often  took  the  form  of  superstition,  which  is  the 
Nemesis  of  outraged  faith.  Magic  was  widely  practised  by 
its  pretenders  and  widely  believed  in  by  its  dupes.  People 
regulated  their  lives  by  omens.  While  the  venerable 
oracles  of  Delphi  and  other  ancient  shrines  were  com- 
paratively neglected,  augury  from  the  flight  of  birds  or 
the  inspection  of  entrails  was  more  widely  prevalent  than 
ever.  Nor  was  this  all.  Magic  is  the  mockery  of  religion, 
the  materialistic  substitute  for  the  spiritual  truth  that  has 
been  discarded.  The  heart  of  mankind  "  abhors  a  vacuum." 
If  it  has  not  spirituality  it  will  welcome  sorcery,  accepting 
demonology  in  place  of  theology,  and  giving  the  conjurer 
the  seat  from  which  the  prophet  has  been  ejected.  All 
this  was  seen  in  the  age  that  also  witnessed  the  advent  of 
the  new  faith  destined  to  regenerate  the  world.  Men 
were  making  frantic  efforts  to  save  themselves  from  drown- 
ing in  a  black  ocean  of  spiritual  corruption  by  catching 
at  the  floating  wreckage  of  derelict  cults.  Meanwhile 
there  were  serious  attempts  to  stimulate  a  real  religious 
life.  Augustus,  alarmed  at  the  mordant  scepticism  which 
that  astute  ruler  perceived  to  be  undermining  the 
foundations  of  society  and  corroding  the  institutions  of 
civilisation,  carried  on  a  great  work  of  temple-building 
and  reinstated  sacrificial  rites  at  neglected  altars.  This 
State  religion,  however,  never  touched  the  life  of  the 
people,  who  remained  cold  and  indifferent.  The  Lares  and 
Penates  were  still  honoured  in  out-of-the-way  old-fashioned 
places ;  but  Zeus  and  Athene,  Jupiter  and  Minerva,  were 
no  longer  names  to  thrill  the  Greeks  and  Ptomans  with 
awe.     For  the  first   century  almost   as  much  as  for  the 


10  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Uventieth,  among  the  cultivated,  they  were  tlie  titles  of 
the  classical  divinities  of  the  poets.  Still  less  was  the 
worship  of  the  genius  of  Rome  in  the  person  of  the 
emperor,  first  the  dead  emperor,  then  the  reigning  despot, 
anything  more  than  a  State  function  assiduously  observed 
in  fear  of  the  dread  accusation  of  Icesfe  majestatis. 

But  it  was  not  from  this  quarter  that  the  awakening 
came.  That  arose  in  the  East  and  swept  in  wave  after  wave 
of  religious  excitement  across  to  the  demoralised,  enervated 
West.  We  might  almost  say  that  Christianity  itself  was 
carried  over  the  empire  on  the  crest  of  a  wave  of  religious 
revival,  if  we  did  not  know  that  it  moved  on  by  virtue  of 
its  own  superb  spiritual  life.  Still,  it  is  just  to  affirm  that 
it  appeared  in  an  age  of  revivalism,  and  was  the  one 
successful  among  many  rival  efforts  to  bring  back  the 
world  to  a  sense  of  the  Unseen.  From  Asia  Minor  came 
the  worship  of  the  "  great  mother,"  ^  with  which  was 
associated  the  ancient  sacrifice  of  the  tauroholium  and  its 
purifying  bath  of  blood.  From  Egypt  was  brought  the 
cult  of  Isis  and  Serapis  by  troops  of  white-robed,  shaven 
priests,  who  were  to  be  seen  going  in  procession  through 
the  streets  of  the  cities  of  Europe,  introducing  mysteries 
of  a  dim  antiquity  to  the  wondering  West — telling  of 
the  tenderness  of  Isis,  Queen  of  Heaven,  who  pre- 
pared the  way  for  the  Church's  worship  of  her  Queen 
of  Heaven,  the  Theotohos,  the  "mother  of  God" — pro- 
claiming the  wonders  of  Serapis,  the  god  of  the  unseen 
world  of  the  dead,  with  his  promise  of  eternal  life.  Above 
all,  from  Persia  came  the  worship  of  Mithra,  who,  from 
being  the  angel  Messiah  of  the  earlier  Zoroastrian  religion, 
having  absorbed  the  Babylonian  worship  of  Bel,  became 
the  great  Sun-god,  the  chief  divinity  of  Eoman  emperors 
for  generations,  so  that  even  Constantino  had  his  image  on 
the  reverse  of  coins  which  bore  on  the  obverse  the 
Christian  laharum.  So  potent  was  tliis  cult,  that  Renan 
has  said,  "  If  the  world  had  not  become  Christian  it  would 
have  become  Mithrastic."  Its  rites  of  baptism  and  of 
'  Mafjiia  Mater,  the  Roman  devotee's  name  for  Cybele. 


INTRODUCTION  1 1 

communion  of  bread  and  wine  were  denounced  by 
Christian  writers  as  impious  imitations  of  the  Christian 
sacraments.  While  the  coarser  Asiatic  cults  ran  rampant 
in  the  West,  the  Greeks  were  more  attracted  by  the  milder 
rites  of  Adonis.  These  Oriental  religions  had  their  societies 
of  members,  with  clergy  called  "  presbyters,"  so  that  when 
the  apostles  founded  churches  for  their  converts,  superficial 
observers  in  the  Greek  and  Eoman  world  would  see  at  first 
in  the  Christian  brotherhoods  only  what  was  to  be  expected 
from  the  organisers  of  a  new  religion. 

Lastly,  this  leligious  revival  was  accompanied  by 
attempts  at  moral  reformation  and  a  marked  advance  in 
ethical  teaching.  At  Kome  Seneca,  the  tutor  and  the 
mentor  of  Nero  and  subsequently  the  mad  emperor's 
subservient  minister,  taught  the  loftiest  principles  of 
duty  that  the  pagan  world  had  ever  known,  principles 
so  like  much  that  we  find  in  the  New  Testament  that 
ready  currency  was  given  to  the  forgeries  which  supported 
the  erroneous  legend  of  the  Eoman  Stoic's  connection  with 
St.  Paul.^  In  the  East  Plutarch  was  expounding  the 
ancient  virtues,  basing  them  on  religious  faith,  and  adding  to 
the  stern,  strenuous  rigour  of  Stoicism  a  new  humanitarian- 
ism  that  was  to  have  a  marked  effect  in  softening  the 
brutality  of  society.  This  would  have  attracted  more 
attention  in  later  ages  if  it  had  not  been  outshone  by  the 
greater  glory  of  the  enthusiasm  of  humanity  that  was 
glowing  in  the  breasts  of  the  new  sect  from  Galilee.  The 
next  century  saw  the  lame  slave  Epictetus  teaching 
bracing  lessons  of  moral  independence,  and  the  melancholy 
Emperor  Marcus  Aurelius  sitting  up  at  night  by  his  camp 
fire  on  the  Danube  to  write  meditations  on  duty  and 
resignation.  Stoicism  was  winning  the  adhesion  of  the 
strongest,  finest  natures  to  a  very  high  type  of  duty.  But 
its  glory  was  the  secret  of  its  failure.  Only  the  strongest, 
finest  natures  could  breathe  the  keen  air  of  its  lonely 
heights.  The  mass  of  the  people  never  attained  to  it ;  and 
it  had  no  power  for  recovering  the  failures.     The  world  was 

^  See  Lightfoot,  Theological  Essays,  "St.  Paul  and  Seneca." 


12  THE   OREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

not  80  iittoily  bad  jis  the  satirists  Juvenal  and  Martial 
niiglit  lead  us  to  s>i]»])osc;  nor  must  we  judge  it  by  the 
character  of  the  court  gossip  Suetonius  served  up  for  a 
public  eager  to  feast  on  scandals  of  high  life,  or  the 
sardonic  irony  of  Tacitus  who  wrote  as  the  critic  in 
opposition.  Happily  Home  was  not  the  measure  of  the 
empire.  Not  only  was  there  much  serious  effort  after 
better  things,  but  the  monuments  in  the  cemeteries  contain 
touching  records  of  simple  family  affections  that  could  not 
flourish  in  a  world  that  was  utterly  corrupt.  And  yet  a 
deep  sense  of  failure  gave  a  mournful  tone  to  the  specula- 
tions of  the  most  earnest  men  who  were  labouring  for  the 
social  welfare.  "  No  flight  of  imagination,"  says  Harnack, 
writing  of  a  later  period,  equally  corrupt,  "  can  form  any 
idea  of  what  would  have  come  over  the  ancient  world  or 
the  Eoman  Empire  during  tlie  third  century,  had  it  not 
been  for  the  Church.^ 

*  Expansion  of  Christicmity,  voL  i.  p.  158  (Eug.  edit,). 


PART    I 

THE   CHURCH  AND  THE  EMPIRE 


DIVISION    I 

THE    AGE    OF    THE    FATHERS 


CHAPTER    I 

CHRISTIANITY  IN  THE  EAST  UNDER  THE  PAGAN 
EMPERORS 

(a)  Eusebius,   Hist.   Eccl. ;   Ante-Nicene  Fathers ;   Pliny,   Letters ; 

Tillemont,  Memoirs,  etc. 
(6)  Ulhorn,  Conflict  of  Christianity  with  Heathenism,  1879  ;  Momm- 

sen,   Provinces  of  the  Roman  Empire,    Eng.    Trans.,    1886  ; 

Ramsay,  Christianity  in  the  Roman  Empire,  1893  ;  Hamack, 

Expansion  of  Christianity,  Eng.  Trans.,  1904. 

When  we  begin  to  inquire  into  the  extension  of 
Christianity,  we  are  confronted  by  the  questions :  What 
geographical  area  was  brought  under  evangelising 
influences  ? — By  what  time  was  each  region  reached  ? — 
To  what  extent  was  it  actually  Christianised  ?  This  last 
question  is  by  far  the  most  important  of  the  three,  and  it 
is  the  most  difficult  to  answer.  We  can  obtain  a  fairly 
safe  rough  idea  of  the  area  over  which  some  knowledge  of 
the  gospel  had  been  carried  and  in  which  some  Churches 
had  been  planted  during  the  first  three  centuries  of  the 
Christian  era.  Italy,  Spain,  and  Gaul  in  the  West,  Britain 
in  the  North,  the  Eoman  province  of  Africa  in  the  South, 
had  all  received  Christianity  to  some  extent;  but  though 


14  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Home  was  the  headquarters  of  Western  Christendom,  until 
long  after  this  period  the  majority  of  its  population,  the 
Senate,  and  "  Society,"  remained  pagan.  And  beyond  some 
parts  of  Italy  and  the  African  province,  Christianity  in 
Western  Europe  could  not  be  regarded  for  most  of  this 
time  as  more  than  a  ray  penetrating  the  darkness.  It 
is  doubtful  if  this  light  had  at  all  pierced  the  paganism  of 
the  German  forest  villages.  It  is  to  the  East  that  we  must 
look  for  the  chief  triumphs  of  early  missionary  activity  and 
the  most  vigorous  life  of  the  primitive  Churches. 

Eeligious  movements  are  found  to  go  forward  in  waves 
or  tides  rather  than  with  a  continuous,  even  flow.  There 
are  times  of  revival  alternating  with  flat,  dull,  comparatively 
fruitless  intervals.  Three  such  times  of  revival  may  be 
seen  in  the  Christian  history  of  the  first  three  centuries. 

The  first  was  the  Apostolic  Age.  In  that  period, 
"  beginning  at  Jerusalem,"  the  gospel  was  first  deliberately 
spread  in  the  surrounding  area.  Next,  Samaria  was 
systematically  evangelised.  But  soon  it  was  seen  that  the 
fire  kindled  at  Pentecost  was  not  to  be  confined  to 
officially  organised  missions.  The  pilgrims  who  had  heard 
St.  Peter  at  that  feast  carried  the  astonishing  news  home 
with  them  and  spread  it  among  their  own  people,  and  it  is 
not  unlikely  that  Rome  first  heard  of  the  gospel  in  this 
way.  Then  the  scattering  of  the  Jerusalem  Church,  owing 
to  persecution  by  the  Sanhedrin  and  afterwards  by  Herod 
Agrippa,  sent  its  members  abroad  to  carry  the  seed  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  wherever  they  went,  for  in  these 
early  days  of  enthusiasm  every  Clnistian  was  called  to  be 
a  missionary.  An  important  step  forward  was  taken  when 
a  Gentile  Church  originating  in  the  irresponsible  efforts  of 
certain  entirely  unofficial  Greek  Christians  was  established 
at  Antioch ;  for  this  Church  became  the  centre  of  Hellenic 
Christianity,  while  Jerusalem  remained  only  the  head- 
quarters of  Jewish  Christianity.  It  proved  to  be  the  most 
live  Church  of  the  Apostolic  Age.  Its  charities  outflowed 
in  gifts  for  tl^  Christians  at  Jerusalem  when  they  were 
suffering    hom.    ^  famine ;    and    it,§    missionary   zeal   was 


CHRISTIANITY   UNDER   THE   PAGAN   EMPERORS      15 

proved  by  its  equipping  the  only  definitely  organised 
preaching  expeditions  to  the  heathen  world  in  these  early 
days  of  which  we  have  any  account.  Thus  in  very 
ancient  times  this  great  Church  came  to  the  front,  a 
position  it  maintained  for  centuries  as  the  metropolis  of 
Christianity  in  Syria.  Chiefly  owing  to  the  work  of  St. 
Paul,  who  had  been  sent  out  by  the  Church  at  Antioch  as 
a  companion  to  Barnabas,  at  that  time  a  more  prominent 
person,  the  gospel  soon  reached  Cyprus,  the  south  and 
west  of  Asia  Minor,  Macedonia  and  Achaia,  and  even 
extended  as  far  as  Illyricum.  After  Jerusalem  and 
Antioch — the  two  metropolitan  centres — the  chief  Christian 
cities  in  the  Apostolic  Age  were  Ephesus,  the  capital  of 
Asia ;  Thessalonica,  the  capital  of  South  Macedonia ;  and 
Corinth,  the  capital  of  Achaia ;  to  which  must  be  added 
the  one  great  outpost  of  the  Apostolic  Church  in  the 
West,  Eome  itself,  the  seat  of  the  empire.  It  is  possible 
that  a  Church  arose  in  this  early  period  at  Alexandria, 
the  metropolis  of  Egypt,  although  but  little  weight  can 
be  attached  to  the  legend  that  this  Church  was  founded 
by  St.  Mark,  since  it  does  not  appear  in  any  extant 
writing  of  Clement  or  Origen,  and  is  first  met  with  in 
Eusebius,  who  only  records  it  as  a  tradition.^ 

Nothing  is  more  significant  of  the  courage  and  con- 
fidence of  the  early  Christian  evangelists  than  the  fact 
that  from  the  first  they  seized  on  metropolitan  centres  for 
their  missions.  In  St.  Paul  these  characteristics  led  to  a 
magnificent  prolepsis.  With  an  enthusiasm  which  would 
have  been  pretentious  if  it  had  not  sprung  from  faith 
and  afterwards  found  justification  in  fact,  the  apostle 
spoke  largely  of  Eoman  provinces — "  Asia,"  "  Macedonia," 
"  Achaia "- — as  though  they  were  already  won,  when  he 
had  done  little  more  than  plant  his  standard  in  their  chief 
towns.  For  generations  Christianity  was  a  town  religion. 
The  intelligence,  quickness,  and  energy  of  urban  popula- 
tions responded  more  readily  to  the  new  appeal  of  the 
gospel  than  the  slower  and  more  conservative  nature  of  the 

^  (paaiv,  etc. ,  Hist.  Eccl.  ii.  1 6. 


16  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

country  folk.  Still  there  was  a  radiation  from  the  town 
centres  that  alfcctcd  the  surrounding  regions  in  various 
degrees.  Thus  in  writing  to  the  Corinthians  St.  Paul  is 
able  to  include  "  all  the  saints  which  are  in  the  whole  of 
Achaia.^  No  reliance  can  be  placed  on  unauthenticated 
traditions  of  the  labours  of  other  apostles  in  various  parts 
of  the  world,2  especially  as  the  rivalry  among  the  Churches 
led  to  an  eager  desire  to  claim  apostolic  origin — and 
consequent  authority — wherever  any  pretence  of  the  kind 
could  be  put  forward.  During  the  later  decades  of  the 
first  century  the  history  of  the  Church  is  plunged  into 
obscurity  only  partially  illumined  here  and  there  by 
transient  gleams.  The  Johannine  writings  throw  some 
light  on  the  district  of  Ephesus,  and  indicate  that  in  their 
early  days  Hellenistic  thought  was  already  affecting  the 
Churches  of  that  part  of  Asia.  The  Epistle  of  Clement 
(a.u.  95)  shows  us  the  Church  at  Corinth,  factious  as  in 
the  days  of  St.  Paul,  rebuked  by  her  sister  Church  at  Eome 
for  unchristian  envy  and  for  lack  of  the  grace  of  love  in 
dismissing  her  elders.  If  the  DidacM  may  be  assigned  to 
so  early  a  period,  we  have  in  this  little  Church  Manual  a 
vivid  picture  of  the  life  of  a  small  community  of  Gentile 
Christians,  probably  in  Syria,  severely  antagonistic  to  the 
Jews,  and  kept  in  touch  with  other  Churches  by  the  visits 
of  travelling  Christians  known  as  "apostles"  and 
"  prophets." 

The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus  (a.d.  70) 
and  the  consequent  ruin  of  the  Jewish  State  and  power 
had  a  mixed  ejffect  on  the  condition  of  the  Christians. 
On  the  one  hand,  it  freed  them  from  the  persecution  of 
their  worst  enemies  ;  on  the  other  hand,  it  revealed  to  the 
world    the  distinction  between  Christianity  and  Judaism. 

»  2  Cor.  i.  1. 

'  Matthew  in  Ethiojiia  ;  Andrew  in  Asia  Minor,  Thrace,  Macedonia,  and 
Greece  ;  Philip  in  the  same  wide  region,  with  the  addition  of  Scythia  and 
even  Gaul ;  Matthias  in  Ethiopia  ;  Simon  the  Zealot  in  Egypt,  Lybia,  and 
Mauritania ;  Thaddteus  prearliing  the  gospel  in  the  African  language  ; 
Thomas  in  Parthia  and  India.  There  is  much  confusion  and  contradiction 
among  the  legends. 


CHRISTIANITY    UNDER    THE    PAGAN    EMPERORS       17 

The  Christians  had  taken  no  part  in  the  revolt ;  on  the  eve 
of  tlie  siege  they  had  withdrawn  to  Telia.  In  early  times 
they  had  been  treated  favourably  by  the  ofiicials  of  the 
imperial  Government.  St.  Luke  takes  great  pains  to  make 
this  clear,  and  his  testimony  is  supported  by  St.  Paul,  who 
always  writes  respectfully  of  the  law  and  authority  of 
Kome.  Nero's  savage  massacre  of  Christians  at  Rome 
does  not  indicate  any  widespread  persecution,  although  the 
new  attitude  of  bitter  antagonism  to  the  imperial  Govern- 
ment taken  by  the  Apocalypse — so  completely  the  reverse  of 
that  maintained  by  earlier  New  Testament  books — may  be 
traced  to  the  shock  produced  by  that  frightful  outrage 
among  the  Churches  of  the  East.^  Professor  Ramsay 
considers  that  the  attitude  of  Rome  towards  the  Christians 
was  changed  by  the  Emperor  Vespasian.^  But  if  so  it  is 
very  remarkable  that  no  tradition  to  that  ell'ect  has  been 
preserved  by  the  ecclesiastical  writers.  In  point  of  fact, 
Christianity  was  always  illegal,  until  it  was  adopted  by 
Constantine,  although  it  enjoyed  periods  of  comparative 
immunity  from  persecution  and  was  favoured  by  one  or  two 
direct  acts  of  indulgence.^  During  all  this  time  it  was 
not  a  "  licensed  religion  "  as  was  the  case  with  Judaism, 
and  it  was  never  lawful  to  propagate  a  religion  without 
special  licence.  Judaism  being  licensed — at  all  events  for 
Jews — Christianity  was  not  molested  so  long  as  it  was 
regarded  as  only  a  phase  of  the  recognised  religion  of  the 
Jews;  but  after  a.d.  70,  when  the  two  faiths  stood  apart 
in  the  full  light  of  day,  this  confusion  with  its  consequent 
protection  of  the  Church  was  no  longer  possible. 

It  is  true  that  Rome  showed  a  large-minded,  practical 
tolerance  in  leaving  to  its  conquered  provinces  the  enjoy- 
ment of  their  own  religions.  As  far  as  any  religious  faith 
remained  with  the  officials,  they  would  think  it  as  well  not 
to  offend  the  indigenous  divinities,  and  the  Roman  genius 
for  government  avoided  needless  irritation.     But  this  did 

'  Especially  if  "  the  uumber  of  the  beast "  represents  Nero. 
'  The  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire,  pp.  256  flf. 
»  By  Gallienus,  and  again  by  Galerius. 

a 


18  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHDRCHES 

uot  allow  of  the  propagation  of  foreign  religions  in  different 
parts  of  tlie  empire.^      No  doubt  such  religions  were  spread 
in    wild    confusion ;  but    for    the    most    part    they    were 
content    to    exist    side    by    side,    without    molesting    one 
another,  like  the  various  species  of  birds  that  live  together 
in    a   wood.       They    even    went    fartlier    than    this :   they 
adopted  one  another's  rites  and  legends,  welded  together, 
united  in  a  syncretic  amalgam.      Such  a  process  could  be 
encouraged    as    helping    towards    the    unification    of     the 
empire.      But  Christianity  was  of  a  very  different  temper. 
Enthusiastically  missionary,  pushing,  and  aggressive,  it  was 
intolerant  of  any  other  faith,  since  it  claimed  to  be  the  one 
absolute  faith  of  the  one  true  God,  and  regarded  all  other 
religions  as  false  and  wicked  and  their  divinities  as  demons 
to    be    denounced    and    cast    out.     For    this    reason    the 
Christians  were  very  unpopular.     Some  of  them  did  not 
hesitate  to  pour  scorn  and  contempt  on  the  superstition  of 
their  neighbours  to  an  extent  that  was  not  only  insulting, 
but,    as    sincere   pagans    believed,    even    dangerous ;     and 
earthquakes  and  pestilences  were  attributed  to  the  anger 
of  the  gods  at  the   "atheism"  of    the    Christians.      Con- 
sequently, it  was  common  for  a  great  natural  calamity  to 
be  followed  by  an   outbreak   against   the  Christians  who 
were   supposed    to    have    provoked    it.      Thus    they    fre- 
quently suffered  from  the  persecution  of  panics.     Then  their 
refusal  to  share  in  the  public  games  while  they  declaimed 
against  the  lewdness  of  the  theatre  and  the  bloodthirsty 
cruelty   of  the  amphitheatre,  their  reluctance  to  join   in 
popular    holidays    or    to    accept    municipal    offices   which 
involved  pagan  sacrificial  rites,  and  their  reiterated   pre- 
diction of  the  coming  judgment  and  approaching  end  of  the 
world  by  fire,  resulted  in  their  being  regarded  as  "  enemies 
of    the  human   race."     We  can  well    understand    how    a 
Government  that  was  nervously  anxious  to  prevent  disorder 
in  its  vast  and  incongruous  dominions  would  be  averse  to 
the  spread  of  a  sect  whose  presence  provoked  antagonism 
and    introduced     a    disintegrating    element     into    society. 

'  The  lule  to  be  uL.-.uivtiJ  was,  Cajus  regio,  ejics  religio. 


CHRISTIANITY    UNDER    THE    PAGAN    EMPERORS       19 

Above  all,  the  new,  monstrous  cult  of  the  emperor,  which 
was  supposed  to  carry  with  it  the  worship  of  the  incarnate 
genius  of  Eome,  was  peculiarly  obnoxious  to  the  Christians, 
whose  outspoken  repudiation  of  it  laid  them  open  to  a 
charge  of  treason,  to  the  terrible  accusation  of  Icesce 
majcstatis.  For  these  reasons  they  were  always  liable  to 
persecution. 

The  attack  assumed  various  forms.  Sometimes  it  was 
a  mere  rising  of  a  fanatical  mob,  though,  as  in  the  Turkish 
dominions  to-day,  there  might  be  good  reason  for  supposing 
that  this  was  winked  at  or  even  instigated  by  the 
authorities ;  sometimes  it  was  a  case  of  prosecution  by  a 
private  individual,  before  a  magistrate  who  may  have  been 
reluctant  to  put  the  law  in  force  and  anxious  to  find  an 
excuse  for  acquitting  his  prisoner ;  sometimes  it  was 
directly  ordered  by  the  emperor,  It  was  only  in  the 
latter — a  much  more  rare — case  that  a  serious,  widespread 
persecution  took  place.  There  is  no  evidence  that  any  such 
persecution,  as  a  deliberate  act  of  State  policy,  was  ex- 
perienced under  Vespasian  or  Titus,  or  that  those  emperors 
had  any  idea  whatever  of  eradicating  the  then  obscure 
sect  of  the  Christians.  Domitian  (a.d.  81-96)  does 
appear  to  have  cast  his  suspicious  eye  on  these  dangerous 
innovators,  and  probably  his  execution  of  persons  of  high 
position  for  "  atheism  "  and  for  turning  aside  to  "  customs 
of  the  Jews "  was  an  attack  upon  Christians.  But  the 
known  instances  are  few.  Irenreus's  statement  that  St.  John 
was  banished  to  Patmos  in  the  reign  of  Domitian  ^  is  an 
indication  that  there  was  then  some  persecution  in  the  East ; 
but,  as  we  have  seen,  sporadic  persecution  was  always 
possible,  and  probably  it  never  entirely  ceased  during 
these  times.  There  is  no  sign  of  an  extensive  general 
persecution  under  Domitian. 

When  we  come  to  the  second  century,  the  history  of 

the  Early  Church  begins  to  emerge  out  of  obscurity  in  two 

quarters  of  great  interest,  during  the  reign  of  Trajan  (a.d. 

98—117).     First  we  have  Pliny's  correspondence  with  the 

1  Adv.  Hcer.  v.  30. 


20  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

emperor,  from  which  we  learn  that  in  Bithynia  the  temples 
were  almost  forsaken,  that  there  was  no  sale  for  sacrificial 
victims,  and  that  the  Christians  were  in  a  majority  of  the 
population.  Pliny  as  proconsul  had  prosecuted  inquiries 
into  this  serious  condition  of  his  province,  putting  two 
deaconesses  to  the  torture,  to  extract  from  them  the 
secrets  of  the  sect ;  but  ho  could  ascertain  nothing  against 
them.  Still,  he  regarded  Christianity  as  a  "  depraved  and 
immoderate  superstition,"  and  he  had  condemned  many  of 
its  adherents  to  death.  Being  a  humane  man  and  not  self- 
reliant,  Pliny  was  perplexed  at  the  problem  that  faced  him. 
He  shrank  from  the  drastic  measures  that  would  be 
involved  in  the  attempt  to  stem  the  popular  movement ;  ^ 
yet  this  movement  was  illegal.  In  fact,  it  was  now 
doubly  obnoxious  to  the  law,  because  Trajan  had  recently 
issued  a  rescript  forbidding  the  existence  of  secret  societies, 
and  the  churches  appeared  to  be  such  societies.  Ultimately 
this  difficulty  was  got  over  by  the  enrolment  of  them  as 
burial  societies,  since  an  exception  was  made  in  favour  of  those 
serviceable  clubs.  Trajan's  brief,  decisive  answer  to  Pliny's 
inquiry  as  to  how  he  should  treat  the  Christians  is  highly 
significant.^  There  is  to  be  no  police  hunt  for  these 
people,  and  informers  are  not  to  be  encouraged.  But  when 
Christians  are  actually  prosecuted  they  must  be  punished. 
We  can  have  no  question  as  to  what  that  means ;  the 
penalty  is  death.  Dr.  Lightfoot  regarded  this  as  a 
merciful  rescript ;  and  no  doubt  it  was  merciful  in  intention. 
Nevertheless,  now  for  the  first  time — as  far  as  we  are 
aware — Christianity  as  such  is  declared  to  be  a  capital 
crime.  Previously  it  was  this  constructively ;  henceforth 
it  is  to  be  so  explicitly,  on  the  autliority  of  the  emperor. 

The  second  case  in  which  we  have  a  gleam  of  light 
thrown  on  the  state  of  the  Church  in  the  reign  of  Trajan 
is  that  of  the  seven  Ignatian  letters  now  widely  accepted 
in   their    shorter    Greek    form.^     Ignatius,  the    bishop  of 

'  Pliny,  Epis.  x.  96.  ^  piiny,  Epis.  x.  97. 

'  Their  genuineness  is  vindicated  by  Zahn  and  Lightfoot  and  admitted 
by  Harnack,  Kruger,  etc. 


CHRISTIANITY    UNDER   THE    PAGAN    EMPERORS       21 

Antioch,  is  taken  to  Eonie  during  this  reign  to  be  killed 
by  wild  beasts  in  the  Coliseum. 

Hadrian  (a.d.  117-138),.  the  "grand  monarch"  who 
made  it  his  pride  to  beautify  the  cities  of  his  empire  with 
magnificent  buildings  while  he  lived  in  splendour  and 
luxury,  had  none  of  the  rigour  of  the  stern  soldier  Trajan, 
and  he  does  not  appear  to  have  taken  any  part  himself  in 
the  persecution  of  Christians.  Yet  there  were  instances  of 
martyrdom  even  under  his  easy  rule ;  and  the  insurrection 
of  the  Jews  stirred  up  by  Bar  Cochbar  (ad.  131)  led  to 
great  slaughter  of  Christians  wherever  their  old  enemies 
got  the  upper  hand  of  the  Eoman  Government.  This 
demolished  the  last  remnant  of  confusion  between  Chris- 
tianity and  Judaism  in  the  official  mind. 

Formerly  it  was  customary  to  regard  the  reign  of  the 
just,  conscientious  emperor  Antoninus  Pius  (a.d.  138—161) 
as  free  from  the  stain  of  persecution ;  but  that  agreeable 
delusion  had  to  be  abandoned  a  few  years  ago,  when  the 
date  of  the  martyrdom  of  Polycarp,  the  aged  bishop  of 
Smyrna  and  teacher  of  Ignatius,  was  ascertained  to  fall 
within  this  reign  (a.d.  155  or  156).  Still,  it  was  a  local 
affair,  largely  instigated  by  Jewish  animosity,  with  which 
the  emperor  was  not  directly  concerned.  His  successor, 
the  gentle  Marcus  Aurelius,  saint  and  philosopher  (a.d. 
161-180),  must  be  held  responsible  for  the  savage  per- 
secution of  the  Christians  at  Lyons  and  Vienne — so 
graphically  described  in  the  letter  from  those  Churches  to 
their  brethren  in  Asia  Minor — since  he  had  been  consulted 
by  the  local  authorities.^  His  own  reference  to  the 
Christians  shows  that  he  regarded  them  as  obstinate,  self- 
advertising  fanatics  whose  folly  was  a  menace  to  public 
order.  Marcus  Aurelius  went  beyond  Trajan  both  in 
directly  instigating  persecution  and  in  reviving  the  odious 
practice  of  employing  informers.  According  to  Melito  of 
Sardis,  the  persecution  spread  to  Asia  Minor,^  and  from 
Athenagoras  we  should  conclude  that  it  extended  over  a 
wide  area.^  This  is  the  period  of  the  early  apologists, 
*  Eusebiua,  Hist.  Bed.  v.  1.  -  Hid.  iv.  13.  ^  A^)ol.  i.  2. 


22  THK    CUKKK    AND    KASTERN    CHURCHES 

Quadialus  aud  Aiislidcs  writiug  in  the  reign  of  Hadrian, 
Justin  Martyr  and  Athenagoras  in  the  days  of  the 
Antniiincs.  Tht;  calm,  courageous  dignity  of  the  defence 
of  Christianity  now  oliered  to  the  Government  hymen  who 
put  it  forth  at  the  risk  of  torture  and  death,  is  as  striking 
as  its  intellectual  vigour  and  rare  moral  enthusiasm.  It 
never  descends  to  cringing  excuses,  cow\ardly  subterfuges, 
or  angry  retorts,  although  it  is  always  prepared  to  drive 
the  war  of  argument  into  the  enemy's  territory.  Calm, 
open,  frank,  respectful,  it  reveals  its  authors  as  men  who 
are  certain  that  they  can  justify  their  position  and  con- 
fident of  the  future  triumph  of  their  cause,  while  they 
are  quite  ready  to  shed  their  own  blood  in  the  athletics  of 
martyrdom. 

Nowhere  is  the  irony  of  history  more  manifest  than  in 
the  fact  tliat  when  the  two  best  of  the  liomau  emperors, 
Antoninus  Pius  and  Marcus  Aurelius,  were  followed  by 
one  of  the  most  worthless  in  the  person  of  Commodus 
(a.d.  180-192),  persecution  was  arrested  and  a  season  of 
prosperity  hitherto  unparalleled  set  in  for  the  Christians. 
This  idle,  dissolute  young  man  had  not  sufficient  serious- 
ness of  purpose  to  persecute,  and  he  seems  to  have  taken 
a  stupid  pleasure  in  reversing  his  father's  policy.  At  the 
same  time,  Marcia,  his  favourite  mistress,  was  distinctly 
friendly  to  the  Christians,  among  whom  she  appears  to 
have  been  brought  up  in  her  humbler  days ;  in  particular 
she  exerted  herself  to  have  the  exiles  recalled  from  Sicily. 
Now  for  the  first  time  Christians  were  to  be  seen  and 
recognised  as  such  in  the  imperial  court. 

At  this  point  the  second  period  of  activity  and  growth 
in  the  Church  Ijegins.  With  the  exception  of  one  short 
interval  of  persecution  a  long  summer  of  prosperity  had 
now  set  in.  Commodus  was  succeeded  by  Septimius 
Severus  (a.d.  193-211),  a  good  emperor  reigning  well, 
and  therefore  a  persecutor  of  the  Christians.  But  his 
antagonism  to  the  growing  Church  appears  to  have  been 
provoked  by  the  extravagances  of  those  Puritans  of  the 
second  century,   the  Montanists.      There  are  two  sides  to 


CHRISTIANITY    UNDER    THE    PAGAN    EMPERORS       23 

this  matter.  The  Montanists  perceived  that  with  growtli 
in  numbers,  wealth,  and  general  prosperity,  the  Church 
was  losing  its  early  purity  and  the  fine,  heroic  enthusiasm 
of  simpler  times.  They  not  only  practised  a  new  rigour  of 
discipline  within  the  Church  ;  they  also  showed  themselves 
eager  to  grasp  the  martyr's  crown  by  provoking  the 
antagonism  of  the  authorities.  Now,  Septimius  Severus 
while  on  progress  in  the  East  had  come  under  the  influence 
of  the  priests  of  Isis  and  Serapis,  among  the  most  bitter 
of  the  antagonists  of  the  Christians.  It  is  not  surprising, 
therefore,  that  under  these  circumstances  he  issued  a  decree 
forbidding  the  propagation  of  new  doctrines  or  any  change 
of  religions  (a.d.  203),  a  rather  inconsistent  thing  to  do 
considering  that  he  himself  had  just  been  initiated  into 
the  Egyptian  mysteries.  But  the  decree  was  simply  aimed 
at  the  Christians,  who  were  the  chief,  if  not  the  sole, 
sufferers  from  it.  The  consequent  persecution  extended 
along  North  Africa  and  was  felt  severely  in  Egypt,  where 
Leonidas,  the  father  of  Origen,  was  the  first  to  seal  his 
faith  with  his  blood.  Here  too  was  the  scene  of  the 
romance  of  Potameia,  the  beautiful,  gifted  girl  who  won 
over  her  military  custodian  Basilides  to  follow  her  in 
martyrdom.  After  this  we  come  to  forty  years  of  peace, 
not  indeed  without  occasional  local  outbreaks  of  persecu- 
tion— for  Christianity  was  illegal  all  this  time — but  with 
no  serious  attempt  to  suppress  the  growing  Church,  which 
is  now  seen  standing  out  in  broad  daylight  and  challenging 
the  world's  attention.  One  emperor,  Alexander  Severus, 
has  a  statue  of  Christ  set  up  in  his  palace  by  the  side  of 
statues  of  Abraham  and  Orpheus ;  another,  Philip  the 
Arabian,  is  even  rumoured  to  have  been  a  Christian,' 
though  his  celebration  of  the  secular  games  contradicts 
that  notion. 

Thus  all  seemed  favourable,  and  the  Church,  growing 
strong  and  rich,  might  consider  that  since  she  had 
weathered  the  storms  of  her  early  days  she  could  now 
look  forward  to  a  course  of  unimpeded  progress,  till  the 

^  Ensebins,  Hist.  Eccl.  vi.  34. 


24  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

whole  empire  was  won  for  tlie  douiiuion  of  Christ,  when 
there  fell  upon  her  a  violent  persecution,  in  com- 
parison with  which  all  previous  attacks  were  slight  and 
loctil.  This  was  the  great  Decian  persecution  (a.d.  250). 
The  emperor  Decius,  coming  to  the  throne  of  what 
appeared  to  be  a  decaying  empire,  determined  to  make 
a  supreme  effort  to  restore  the  old  Eoman  virtue  and 
vigour.  In  particular  he  regarded  the  Christians  as  the 
most  dangerous  innovators  of  the  ancient  customs. 
Accordingly  he  entered  on  the  huge  task  of  putting  an 
end  to  Christianity.  The  persecution  which  followed 
was  a  life-and-death  struggle.  It  mainly  differed  from 
previous  persecutions  in  being  carried  on  by  a  strong, 
determined  man  in  pursuance  of  a  deliberate  policy  to 
root  out  what  its  author  believed  to  be  the  most  serious 
menace  to  the  State,  an  imperium  in  imperio,  the  growth 
of  which  threatened  to  choke  the  civil  power.  Thus 
instigated  by  Decius  himself,  this  tremendous  onslaught 
on  the  Church — incomparably  more  searching  and  uncom- 
promising than  anything  that  preceded  it — was  the  first 
really  general  persecution,  the  first  attempt  of  Rome  to 
use  all  its  might  for  the  utter  extirpation  of  Christianity. 
And  it  failed.  The  Church  proved  too  strong  for  the  State. 
When  Decius  perished  miserably  in  a  morass  during  a 
war  with  the  Goths,  the  persecution  flickered  out  and 
faded  away.  Gallus  revived  it  faintly  and  Valerian  more 
seriously,  until  his  capture  by  the  Persians  was  promptly 
followed  by  his  son  Gallienus's  issue  of  the  first  edict  of 
toleration  (a.d.  260).  There  had  been  hosts  of  martyrs ; 
but  multitudes  of  weaker  men  and  women  had  been 
terrified  into  apostasy,  and  the  Church  was  now  face 
to  face  with  the  grave  problem  of  "  the  lapsed,"  a 
problem  tliat  led  to  a  serious  division.  Still,  the  fiery 
ordeal  had  been  a  great  purgation,  and  now  again  the 
Christians  enjoyed  a  long  spell  of  liberty,  with  ample 
opportunities  for  pushing  their  conquests  forward  in 
this  third  season  of  vigorous  life  and  missionary  energy. 
It  would  seem  that  this  time  the  victory  was  secure. 


CHRISTIANITY   UNDER   THE   PAGAN   EMPERORS      25 

But  once  again  the  forces  of  the  enemy  were  marshalled 
for  a  last  decisive  conflict.  After  more  than  forty  years 
of  peace  and  prosperity  the  most  severe  of  all  the 
persecutions  was  commenced.  Christianity  was  now  a 
popularly  recognised  religion ;  in  the  cities  large 
and  imposing  churches  were  among  the  chief  public 
buildings ;  many  Christians  were  to  be  found  in  high  places 
at  court ;  and  the  emperor  Diocletian  was  favourably 
disposed  to  them.  Although  the  persecution  bears  his 
name,  and  although  as  senior  Augustus  he  was  actually 
responsible  for  it  and  was  even  induced  to  sign  the  earlier 
edicts,  its  real  author  was  his  colleague  Galerius,  whom 
Lactantius  calls  the  "  Wild  Beast "  ;  and  the  final  edict  com- 
manding all  Christians  to  sacrifice  or  die  was  issued  by 
another  colleague,  Maximian,  when  the  old  emperor  was  laid 
aside  in  broken  health  and  in  a  state  of  melancholy  border- 
ing on  insanity.  Eusebius  gives  us  a  vivid  account  of  the 
martyrs  of  Palestine  under  this  last  desperate  attempt  to 
stamp  out  Christianity.^  But  if  the  Decian  persecution  with 
all  the  resources  of  the  State  to  support  it  had  failed  half 
a  century  before,  the  idea  of  destroying  Christianity  now 
that  it  had  grown  so  much  stronger  was  preposterous. 
All  this  bloodshed  was  so  much  waste  as  far  as  the 
aims  of  the  persecutors  were  concerned.  In  the  agonies 
of  his  deathbed,  its  author  Galerius  issued  an  edict  putting 
a  stop  to  it  and  even  commanding  the  Christians  to  pray 
for  him  (a.d.  311).  After  this  it  is  not  so  very  won- 
derful that  two  years  later  Constantine  went  over  to 
the  winning  side  and  openly  adopted  Christianity ;  for 
he  was  an  astute  ruler  who  had  seen  the  outbreak  of  the 
persecution  from  Diocletian's  court  and  observed  its  utter 
futility. 

It  is  not  easy  to  estimate  the  position  attained  by  the 
victorious  Church  in  the  East  after  these  centuries  of 
chequered  history,  but  a  rough  idea  may  be  formed  from 
the  data  afforded  us  by  history.  Professor  Harnack  points 
to  Asia  Minor  as  "  the  Christian  country  kut  i^o^ijv 
^  De  Martyribus  Falcestince — following  book  viii.  of  Hist.  Eccl. 


26  THE   fiREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

(luring  the  pre-Constantine  era."  ^  Half  Nicomedia  was 
now  Christian ;  Bithynia  and  Western  Pisidia  were  widely 
Christianised ;  in  Asia  and  Caria  the  Christians  were  very 
mimerous  ;  the  soutliorn  provinces  of  Syria,  Pamphilia,  and 
Isauria  sent  twenty-tivc  bishops  to  the  Nicene  Council  and 
Cilicia  sent  nine.  Thrace,  Macedonia,  Dardania,  Epirus, 
and  Greece  were  all  provinces  of  the  Church  with  their 
own  metropolitans,  though  little  is  known  of  their  history. 
North  and  west  there  were  young  churches  planted  as  far 
away  as  the  banks  of  the  Danu])e,  and  missionary  work 
was  already  begun  among  the  Goths  to  the  north-west 
of  the  Black  Sea. 

In  Palestine  there  was  quite  a  number  of  churches — 
Professor  Harnack  gives  the  names  of  about  thirty — with 
Jerusalem  as  their  capital.  There  were  three  churches  in 
Phoenicia  and  a  good  number  in  Ccele-Syria,  with  the 
important  bishopric  of  Antioch  at  their  head.  Less  than 
a  century  after  this  time  Chrysosotom  reckons  the  number 
of  members  of  the  chief  church — perhaps,  as  Gibbon  con- 
sidered, meaning  the  total  Christian  population  of  this  city 
— to  be  100,000.  Then  there  were  churches  in  Arabia, 
and  as  early  as  the  time  of  Origen  numerous  bishoprics  in 
towns  south  of  the  Hauran.  In  Egypt  the  Christians 
were  very  numerous,  those  in  Alexandria  far  out- 
numbering the  Jews ;  churches  were  flourishing  in  the 
Nile  towns  as  far  up  as  Philae  and  on  the  two  oases. 
Lastly,  Edessa  was  now  an  important  Christian  centre,  and 
there  were  several  churches  in  Mesopotamia,  and  some 
even  beyond  the  confines  of  the  empire  in  Parthia  and 
Persia. 

*  Expansion  of  Chrlslianilij,  Eng.  Trans.,  vol.  ii.  p.  326. 


CHAPTER   TI 

CONSTANTINE   THE   GREAT 
BORN    PROBABLY    A.D,    274;    DIED    A.D.    337 

(a)  Pagan  historians :  Eutropius  ;  Aurelius  Victor ;  Zosimus. 
Christian  writers  :  Lactantius  ;  Eusebius  ;  Socrates  ;  Sozomen. 

Q))  De  Broglie,  I'Eylise  et  UEm/pire  au  IV^  Siecle,  vol.  i.,  1856; 
iita,Viley, Eastern  Church,l8iil ;  S,mit\i' &  Didionartj  of  Biography, 
article  "  Constantinus  I."  ;  Frith,  Constantine  the  Great,  1905- 

The  name  of  Constantine  marks  the  commencement  of  a 
new  era  of  history  both  in  the  empire  and  in  the  Church. 
The  transition  from  the  old  form  of  government  which  was 
nominally  republican,  wit^h  the  emperor  as  prince  of  the 
Senate,  commander-in-chief  of  the  army,  Pontifex  Maximus, 
and  much  else,  accumulating  in  his  own  person  the  chief 
republican  offices,  to  the  new  form  of  government  which 
was  frankly  despotic,  must  be  attributed  to  Diocletian.  It 
was  that  keen -sigh  ted  ruler  who  saw  that  the  time  had 
come  for  the  abolition  of  empty  formulse  and  a  readjust- 
ment of  the  whole  machinery  of  government.  Diocletian 
abandoned  all  pretence  of  maintaining  the  stern  Eoman 
simplicity  of  manners,  and  introduced  into  his  palace  the 
pomp  and  ceremony  of  an  Oriental  court.  By  centralising 
the  government,  and  then  subdividing  it,  so  that  there  were 
two  Augusti — an  Eastern  and  a  Western — and  two  Caesars 
under  them,  he  so  knit  up  the  imperial  authority  that  when 
the  senior  Augustus  died  the  junior  Augustus  took  the  first 
place  as  a  matter  of  course,  and  one  of  the  Caesars  became 
junior  Augustus.  Each  Augustus  nominated  his  own 
Caesar.  All  decrees  affecting  the  whole  empire  were 
signed  by  the  joint  rulers,  the  supreme  authority  resting 

27 


28  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

with  the  senior  Augustus.  In  iliis  way  three  advantages 
were  L'ained  :  tlie  vast  work  of  government  was  subdivided  ; 
the  unity  of  empire  was  preserved ;  and  the  succession 
was  regulated,  in  a  peaceful  and  orderly  method.  Then, 
by  settling  his  court  at  Nicomedia,  Diocletian  already 
began  to  transfer  the  centre  of  gravity  in  the  empire  from 
Rome  to  the  East.  Constantine  came  to  the  throne  under 
this  arrangement.  His  father  was  Constantius  Chlorus,  of 
a  noble  Dardanian  family,  who  had  been  Ciesar  over  the 
provinces  of  Gaul,  Spain,  and  Britain,  and  then  Augustus. 
His  mother  was  the  famous  Empress  Helena,  whose 
traditional  "  Invention  of  the  Cross "  has  made  her  a 
conspicuous  figure  in  Christian  art.  By  a  confusion  of 
traditions  she  has  been  taken  for  a  British  princess  of  the 
same  name ;  but  she  was  really  a  Cilician  and  servant  at 
an  inn.  Helena  has  been  described  as  a  "  concubine  "  of 
Constantius;  but  she  must  not  be  regarded  as  only  the 
emperor's  mistress.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  they 
were  husband  and  wife  according  to  a  secondary  order 
of  marriage  recognised  in  the  empire  at  the  time. 

The  young  Constantine  was  brought  up  at  his  mother's 
village  home  till  he  was  sixteen  years  old,  when  the 
suspicious  Diocletian  had  him  come  to  reside  at  court  in 
Nicomedia,  evidently  as  a  hostage  for  his  father's  good 
conduct.  When  Constantius  became  Augustus  he  sent  for 
his  son  to  help  him  with  the  government  (a.d.  305). 
Though  outwardly  consenting,  Galerius,  who  was  senior 
Augustus  at  the  time,  was  really  unwilling  to  let  him  go, 
and  Constantine  had  to  slip  away  secretly  and  hurry 
Westwards  to  escape  recapture.  The  next  year  (a.d.  306) 
Constantius  died  at  York,  having  nominated  his  son  as 
his  successor ;  and  at  York  Constantine  was  hailed  by  the 
soldiers  as  Augustus.  When  he  had  obtained  supreme 
power,  Constantine,  like  Diocletian,  made  the  centre  of 
his  government  in  the  East.  For  a  time  Nicomedia,  not 
Eome,  was  the  real  capital  of  the  empire.  Then  Constantine 
determined  to  found  a  new  Rome.  With  the  insight  of 
genius  he  chose  Byzantium  as  the  site,  and  built  there  the 


CONST ANTINE    THE    GREAT  29 

city  which  as  Constantinople  has  ever  after  commemorated 
its  famous  founder.  Magnificently  situated  on  the  Bosphorus 
by  the  high  road  between  Europe  and  Asia,  this  city  was 
naturally  the  key  to  the  gates  of  empire  in  both  directions. 
It  was  in  Europe,  not  in  Asia,  as  was  the  case  with 
Nicomedia.  We  may  regard  that  fact  as  not  without 
significance.  Diocletian,  though  so  alive  to  the  exigencies 
of  the  times,  looked  Eastward  and  emulated  the  Oriental 
despots  in  his  court  methods.  But  although  his  mother 
was  an  Asiatic  and  although  he  himself  had  spent  his  youth 
in  Asia,  Constantine  was  in  sympathy  with  Greek  culture, 
and  Constantinople  was  a  Greek  city.  From  the  first  and 
throughout  its  history  till  its  capture  by  the  Turks,  the 
new  city  was  a  centre  of  Hellenic  life  and  influence.  The 
significance  of  this  fact  can  hardly  be  overestimated. 
The  Eoman  empire  in  the  East  was  fast  degenerating  into 
an  Asiatic  despotism  after  the  Persian  type.  Constantine 
saved  it  from  that  fate.  Nevertheless  he  accentuated  the 
most  significant  line  of  policy  pursued  by  Diocletian ; 
while  preserving  the  European  character  of  the  govern- 
ment, he  recognised  that  the  centre  of  gravity  must  be  in 
the  East  and  acted  accordingly.  The  consequences  were 
as  momentous  to  the  Church  as  to  the  empire.  Removal 
from  Eome  was  escape  from  Roman  pagan  traditions  and 
Roman  aristocratic  influences.  It  was  the  death-blow  to 
the  last  lingering  influence  of  the  Senate.  Henceforth  the 
empire,  except  in  one  vital  element,  was  Roman  only  in 
name.  It  was  no  longer  the  rule  of  a  city  over  its 
conquered  provinces ;  it  was  the  rule  of  a  prince  and  his 
colleagues,  who  might  be  of  any  nationality.  The  one  vital 
element  which  preserved  the  integrity  of  the  empire 
throughout  and  perpetuated  it  in  the  Byzantine  rulers 
was  Roman  law.  Like  "  the  kingdom  of  God,"  this  vast 
civilising  influence  came  "  without  observation."  Having  its 
foundations  in  old  civic  usages  of  republican  times,  and 
built  up  by  jurists  quite  unknown  to  fame  from  the  time 
of  Marcus  Aurelius  onwards,  it  was  destined  to  become 
the    basis    of    the    jurisprudence    and    public    ethics    of 


30  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

mediseval  and  modern  Europe.  Roman  law  stands  only 
second  to  Christianity  as  a  moulding  influence  of  P^uropcan 
civilisation.  This  system  was  so  firmly  established  by 
the  time  of  the  transference  of  the  chief  seat  of  govern- 
ment to  the  East,  that  the  world  was  saved  from  what 
might  liave  been  total  ruin,  from  the  submerging  of  tlie 
stern  Eoman  sense  of  justice  and  the  swamping  of  per- 
sonal as  well  as  public  right  beneath  a  flood  of  Oriental 
customs. 

The  founding  of  Constantinople  profoundly  affected  both 
the  Western  and  the  Eastern  branches  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  but  in  very  different  ways.  To  the  West  it 
brought  ecclesiastical  liberty,  and  it  made  the  papacy 
possible.  Now,  while  the  papacy  became  a  tyranny  within 
the  Church,  it  secured  a  measure  of  freedom  from  the 
tyranny  of  the  imperial  Government  over  the  Church,  At 
Rome  the  pope  soon  assumed  a  position  which  would  have 
been  impossible  to  him  if  the  emperor  had  been  residing 
there.  While  other  cities — Treves,  Milan,  Ravenna — subse- 
quently became  centres  for  the  empire  in  the  West,  Rome  was 
left  severely  alone,  with  the  consequence  that  the  pope  was 
the  first  citizen  and  even  came  to  take  the  place  of  the 
emperor  as  the  chief  centre  of  power  and  influence  in  the  city. 
It  would  be  grossly  unfair  to  attribute  the  enormous  power 
that  has  accreted  to  the  papacy  to  nothing  but  the  rapacity 
of  popes.  At  more  than  one  crisis  of  European  peril  the  pope 
proved  to  be  the  saviour  of  society.  When  the  arm  of 
the  empire  was  paralysed,  the  power  of  the  Church  came 
to  the  rescue  of  civilisation,  in  face  of  barbarian  invasions. 
Leo  I.  was  able  to  protect  Italy  as  effectually  as  though 
he  had  been  a  powerful  prince,  although  his  only  weapons 
were  persuasion  and  diplomacy.  Gregory  the  Great  was  a 
potent  influence  for  the  saving  of  civilisation  in  the  Old 
World,  as  well  as  for  the  missionary  work  of  the  Church 
among  the  new  rising  races  of  the  West.  Hildebrand  may 
be  regarded  in  the  light  of  a  champion  of  the  spiritual  power 
in  opposition  to  the  brute  force  of  mediaeval  tyranny. 
The  Middle  Ages  saw  the  long  duel  between  the  popes  and 


CONSTANTINE   THE   GREAT  31 

tlie  emperors,  and  on  the  wliole  the  popes  were  on  the  side 
of  religion,  culture,  and  progress.  It  was  otherwise  when 
the  Renaissance  and  the  Eeforniation  were  followed  by  the 
counter-Reformation.  Then  all  the  forces  of  obscurantism 
and  despotism  ranged  themselves  with  the  papacy,  while 
the  new  light,  life,  and  liberty  were  driven  out  to  fresh 
lields. 

How  different  was  it  in  the  East,  where  the  Church 
was  subservient  to  the  State  throughout  all  these  ages  ! 
No  doubt  we  must  attribute  the  contrast  between  the 
histories  of  Eastern  and  Western  Europe  in  part  to  racial 
distinctions.  In  some  respects  the  former  is  more  allied 
to  Asia  than  to  Europe.  Thus  we  are  able  to  trace  the 
history  of  all  the  Eastern  Churches  in  a  common  conspectus. 
But  while  this  is  the  case  it  must  be  seen  that  Constantine's 
political  move  in  finally  and  effectually  transferring  the 
centre  of  government  from  the  banks  of  the  Tiber  to  the 
shores  of  the  Bosphorus  immensely  aggravated  the  tendency 
of  the  civil  despotism  to  crush  out  the  liberties  of  the 
Church.  The  Eastern  Church,  from  the  days  of  Constantine 
onwards,  lived  under  the  shadow  of  an  imperial  palace. 
That  we  may  take  to  be  an  epitome  of  its  history ;  and  the 
ominous  fact  is  directly  traceable  to  the  founding  of  New 
Rome  by  Constantine. 

But  while  this  is  obvious  to  us  to-day,  and  is  the  most 
significant  phenomenon  in  the  appearance  of  Constantine 
on  the  stage  of  history  when  viewed  in  the  broad  light  of 
the  ages,  it  was  another  department  of  the  famous  emperor's 
action  that  arrested  the  attention  of  contemporaries.  The 
man  who  really  inaugurated  the  Eastern  Church's 
paralysing  bondage  to  the  State  was  hailed  by  the 
Christians  of  his  day  as  their  emancipator,  friend,  and 
patron,  and  panegyrists  loaded  his  name  with  fulsome 
praises  for  his  services  to  Christianity. 

The  story  of  the  conversion  of  Constantine  belongs  to 
the  romance  of  history  ;  but,  like  many  another  romantic 
tale  which  has  been  made  to  pass  through  the  fires  of 
criticism,  it  has  not  come  out  scathless.     The  adulation  of 


32  THE   GRKKK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

a  piinoi^'yiisL,  the  ii;ituiiil  tliirsL  for  marvels,  and  the  con- 
vention of  media'val  art  have  comhincd  to  set  the  scene  of 
Constantiiic'K  vision  on  the  road  to  Konie  side  hy  side  with 
St.  Paul's  vision  during  his  journey  to  Damascus.  When 
viewed  in  the  sober  light  of  history,  neither  this  event, 
whatever  it  may  have  been,  nor  its  consequences,  is  in  any 
way  comparable  to  that  stui)eiHlous  crisis  and  turning-point 
in  the  career  of  the  great  apostle.  Newman  argued 
strenuously  for  the  belief  that  here  was  a  real  miracle,  a 
direct  supernatural  intervention  by  God,  at  a  fitting  time. 
But  when  we  consider  the  fact  that  it  was  a  war  banner 
that  the  Prince  of  Peace  was  said  to  have  inspired,  and 
when  we  go  on  to  look  at  the  subsequent  character  of  the 
man  who  is  said  to  have  been  thus  favoured  and  the  whole 
effect  of  the  patronage  of  Christianity  by  the  empire,  it  is 
not  easy  to  believe  that  all  tiiis  indicates  nothing  less  than 
the  finger  of  God.  When,  however,  we  come  down  to  the 
lower  plane  of  simple  history,  it  must  be  admitted  that 
something  strange  did  happen,  and  that  this  occurrence, 
whatever  it  was,  became  the  occasion  of  stupendous  con- 
sequences. The  accounts  vary ;  but  that  is  no  more  than 
must  be  said  of  all  independent  reports  of  the  same  event. 
What  is  plain  is  that,  in  October  312,  while  Constantine 
was  marching  to  Pome  against  the  usurper  Maxentiiis,  the 
champion  of  paganism,  something  occurred  to  lead  him  to 
claim  the  Christian  symbol  for  his  standard  in  the 
approaching  battle.  Whether  we  accept  the  narrative 
which  Eusebius  says  the  emperor  gave  him  on  oath^ — 
perhaps  not  to  us  the  more  reliable  for  that  fact — that  the 
eni]>eror  "  saw  with  his  own  eyes  the  trophy  of  a  cross  of 
light  in  the  heavens,  above  the  sun,  and  bearing  the  in- 
scription, "  Conquer  by  this,"  ^  and  received  an  explanation 
from  Christ  in  a  dream  ;   or  stretch  our  credulity  to  the 

'  Vit.  Const,  i.  27.  On  tliis  i)oiiit  Prof.  E.  C.  Ricliardson  acutely  remarks  : 
"Note  liere  the  care  Eusebiuu  takes  to  throw  oft'  the  responsibility  for  the 
la&TveUomi"  {Nkeiie  and  Post-Kiceiie  Fathers,  vol.  i.  p.  490).  In  his  History 
Eusebius'  statement  is  both  vague  and  cautious  [Hist.  Ecd,  ix.  9). 

*  Toirrtf)  vlKa. 


CONSTANTINE    THE   GREAT  33 

still  more  marvellous  and  much  later  account  of  Sozomen, 
according  to  which  angels  appeared  at  the  time  of  the  vision 
and  gave  the  explanation  there  and  then  ;  or  fall  hack  on  the 
sober  statement  of  Lactantius,  whose  report  is  the  earliest  of 
all,  and  who  resolves  the  whole  occurrence  into  a  dream  ^ — 
whichever  of  these  narratives  we  accept,  or  whether  we 
attempt  to  combine  any  of  the  elements  contained  in  them, 
we  cannot  well  escape  from  the  conclusion  that  something 
happened  to  bring  Constantine  to  a  definite  decision  at 
this  great  crisis  of  his  life.  Possibly  there  was  some 
curious  effect  of  sunlight  —  such  as  that  known  to 
astronomers  as  the  "  parhelion,"  in  which  a  cross  of  light 
may  be  seen  radiating  from  the  sun,  which  the  emperor's 
mood  at  the  time  could  not  but  lead  him  to  welcome  as  a 
sign  from  heaven.  That  is  the  point.  The  fascination  for 
a  supposed  physical  miracle  has  diverted  attention  from 
a  most  interesting  psychological  process.  Unlike  St.  Paul, 
Constantine  had  never  been  opposed  to  Christianity.  He 
had  inherited  from  his  father  a  friendly  feeling  towards 
the  Christians.  Eusebius  prefaces  his  report  of  what 
the  emperor  had  said  to  him  about  the  vision  with  a  de- 
scription of  Constantino's  perplexity  and  his  prayer  for 
light  at  a  moment  of  terrible  anxiety.  None  of  the 
narratives  will  allow  us  to  assign  his  adoption  of 
Christianity  to  mere  statecraft  or  cunning  policy. 

When  the  battle  at  the  Milvian  Bridge  in  which  the 
tyrant  Maxentius  was  killed  gave  Constantine  a  magnificent 
victory,  he  felt  in  this  a  confirmation  of  his  resolve  to 
accept  the  Christian  faith  and  adopt  its  sign.  It  is  plain 
that  he  threw  in  his  lot  with  the  Church  on  conviction. 
How  deep  that  conviction  went  it  is  not  easy  to  say. 
His  subsequent  syncretism  and  his  vague  treatment  of 
the  essentials  of  Christian  truth  forbid  us  to  believe  that 
he  had  any  definite  intellectual  grip  of  the  subject. 
Still,  he  honestly  accepted  Christ  as  a  Divine  Lord,  and 
he  consistently  leaned  to  the  side  of  the  Christians  in 
their  differences  with  the  pagans.     It  scarcely  lies  within 

'  De  Morte  Pers.  44. 
J 


34  THE   GREKK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

the  province  uf  history  to  penetrate  still  deeper  into 
the  inquiry  as  to  wliether  the  so-called  conversion  of 
Constantine  brought  with  it  a  real  change  of  character. 
He  was  large-minded,  generous,  pacific  before  this ;  and  he 
remained  so  afterwards.  Yet  he  cannot  be  acquitted  of 
charges  of  savage  outbursts  of  cruelty  even  after  his  "  con- 
version." Possibly  he  was  not  guilty  of  the  murder  of  his 
wife  Fausta,  but  he  could  not  plead  inno(ience  with  re- 
gard to  that  of  his  sou  (Jrispus.  Reasons  of  State  have 
been  urged  in  defence  of  his  action  in  this  matter; 
evidently  it  was  a  political  murder.  Still,  the  guilt  of 
blood  and  that  the  blood  of  his  own  cliild  lies  on 
Constantine  in  the  Christian  period  of  his  life.  In  other 
respects  he  was  an  honourable  and  upright  man,  and  a 
faithful  husband,  free  from  all  accusations  of  impurity 
among  the  great  temptations  of  an  Oriental  court. 

Most  men  act  from  mixed  motives,  and  certainly  we 
could  not  credit  Constantine  with  the  single  eye  of  a 
George  Washington  or  a  John  Bright.  There  were  high 
reasons  of  State  to  encourage  so  astute  a  master  of  the  art 
of  government  to  follow  up  his  undoubted  sympathy 
with  Christianity  and  more  or  less  solid  convictions  of  its 
truth  with  vigorous  practical  patronage.  He  was  far- 
seeing  enough  to  perceive  that  it  was  the  winning  side  in 
the  conflict  of  princes  and  parties.  He  had  been  a  hostage 
at  Nicomedia  when  the  Diocletian  persecution  had  broken 
out ;  he  had  witnessed  the  mad  fanaticism  of  Galerius 
which  had  failed  to  subdue  the  calm  courage  of  the 
Christians ;  Maxentius  the  usurper,  and  later  Licinius,  his 
partner,  but  also  his  rival,  had  enlisted  their  forces  in 
favour  of  paganism.  Manifestly  it  was  to  the  interest  of 
Constantine  to  have  the  powerful,  growing  influence  of 
Christianity  thrown  into  the  scale  in  his  favour.  It  is 
highly  to  the  credit  of  his  discernment  that  he  perceived 
how  futile  the  long  intermittent  conflict  of  the  empire 
with  the  Church  had  been,  and  saw  that  the  time  had  come, 
not  merely  to  make  peace,  as  even  Galerius  and  still  earlier 
Gallienus  had  seen,  but  to  accept  the  situation  frankly  and 


CONSTANTINE   THE    GREAT  35 

turn  it  to  the  best  accouut.  We  may  admit  the  genuine- 
ness of  Coustantine's  conviction  of  the  truth  of  Christianity 
and  the  honesty  of  his  decision  to  adhere  to  it,  and  still  go 
a  long  way  with  Seeley  when  he  asserts,  concerning 
Constantine's  adoption  of  Christianity,  that  "  by  so  doing  he 
may  be  said  to  have  purchased  an  indefeasible  title  by  a 
charter.  He  gave  certain  liberties  and  he  received  in 
turn  passive  obedience.  He  gained  a  sanction  for  the 
Oriental  theory  of  government ;  in  return  he  accepted  the 
law  of  the  Church.  He  became  irresponsible  to  his  sub- 
jects on  condition  of  becoming  responsible  to  Christ." 

It  is  necessary  to  consider  this  position  and  come  to 
some  clear  understanding  of  it,  because  we  are  here  at  the 
source  and  fountain  of  the  political  history  of  the  Greek 
Church.  What  that  Church  became,  not  only  in  relation 
to  the  State,  but  also  in  its  own  life  and  character,  was 
largely  determined  by  the  action  of  Constantine  in 
patronising  Christianity  and  the  conduct  of  the  Church 
in  accepting  his  patronage.  At  this  point  we  may  say 
the  die  was  cast,  the  Kubicon  was  crossed,  the  fate  of 
Christendom — or  rather  of  Eastern  Christendom,  for  the 
West  soon  shook  itself  free — was  sealed.  It  is  desirable, 
therefore,  to  trace  out  carefully  the  stages  of  Constantine's 
treatment  of  the  Church  till  we  reach  the  final  issue  which 
was  to  stamp  the  ecclesiastical  policy  of  the  empire  for 
all  succeeding  ages.  These  may  be  regarded  as  four, 
characterised  respectively  by  sympathy,  justice,  patronage, 
and  control. 

In  the  first  stage  Constantine  feels  drawn  to  Chris- 
tianity and  adopts  the  Christian  symbol ;  in  the  second  he 
grants  religious  liberty  for  the  benefit  of  the  Christians ; 
in  the  third  he  bestows  on  the  Church  privileges,  im- 
munities, and  funds  from  the  State  purse ;  in  the  fourth 
he  interferes  with  ecclesiastical  affairs,  tyrannises  over 
bishops  and  congregations  and  forces  them  to  his  will. 

Constantine's  first  public  confession  of  Christianity  con- 
sisted in  his  adoption  of  the  Labarum  an  his  standard  in 
battle.     This  symbol  consisted  of  a  spear   with  a  cross- 


36  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

piece  near  the  point,  a  gold  wreath  containing  the  initials 
of  Jesus  Christ  (I  and  X)  as  an  anagram  (^)  mouuted 
above  and  a  banner  hanging  below  the  cross-piece.  After 
his  victory  over  Maxentius  at  the  Milvian  Bridge, 
Constantine  was  welconicl  by  the  citizens  of  Rome  as 
their  deliverer  from  an  odious  tyranny,  and  by  none 
more  warmly  than  the  Christians.  The  emperor  justified 
tlieir  enthusiastic  support  by  having  a  statue  of  himself 
with  a  cross  in  his  hand  erected  in  the  most  frequented 
part  of  the  city.  An  inscription  ascribed  his  victory  to 
"  this  salutary  sign."  Constantine  now  showed  favour  to 
the  Ciiri  His  at  every  opportunity,  and  no  persecution 
of  Christianity  was  possible  under  his  government. 

It  would  ai)pear  from  a  phrase  in  the  edict  of  Milan 
that  at  an  early  date  Constantine  had  issued  rescripts  to 
his  officials  favourable  to  the  Christians.  But  the  legal 
pronouncement  which  granted  them  complete  religious 
liberty  followed  a  meeting  of  Constantine  with  Licinius  at 
Milan  on  the  13th  of  June  a.d.  314.  This  Magna  Charta 
of  religious  liberty  is  one  of  the  most  significant  documents 
in  all  history.  It  grants  absolute  freedom  in  religion, 
though  it  mentions  Christians  as  especially  needing  the 
boon,  declaring  that  "  the  Christians  and  all  others  should 
}ia\e  liberty  to  follow  that  mode  of  religion  which  to  each 
of  them  appeared  best."  It  applies  to  the  whole  empire — 
to  all  races,  all  creeds,  all  cults.  There  is  no  restriction 
of  the  heathen  in  favour  of  the  Christians.  Further,  it 
])friiiits  people  to  change  their  religion,  allowing  them  to 
ado]  it  Christianity  or  any  other  religion.  Lastly,  it  orders 
the  confiscated  property  of  the  Christians  to  be  restored, 
"  and  that  without  hesitation  or  controversy " ;  there  are 
to  be  no  lawyers'  quibbles  with  this  delicate  question  of 
property.  Compensation  to  the  present  holders  of  Church 
buildings  may  be  paid  out  of  the  imperial  treasury.^ 

Here  is  the  ideal  of  religious  liberty,  though  not 
Cavour's  "  Free  Church  in   a  Free  State "  ;  for  until  the 

'  Lactantius,    De   Morte   Pers.    48,    for    the   Latin    form  of  the  edict ; 
Eubfbius,  Hist.  Eccl.  x.  6,  for  a  Greek  version  of  it. 


CONSTANTINE   THE   GREAT  37 

State  is  free  it  is  difficult  for  the  Church  to  escape  from 
the  interference  of  the  Government  even  when  the  despotic 
ruler  starts  with  the  honest  intention  of  respecting  its 
liberties.  Nevertheless  the  conception  of  the  edict  of 
Milan  is  magnificent  in  the  breadth  of  its  liberalism.  As 
we  read  it  we  feel  that  the  author  of  such  a  document 
must  be  classed  with  those  rare  minds  that  are  centuries 
in  advance  of  their  age,  and  have  the  genius  to  adumbrate 
brilliant  ideas  the  real  scope  of  which  is  quite  beyond 
their  actual  principles.  Except  for  a  very  brief  interval, 
the  large  conception  of  the  edict  of  Milan  was  not 
realised  even  in  the  West  before  the  Eeformation,  and 
indeed  not  then  except  by  a  few  obscure  separatists  such 
as  the  Baptists,  the  early  Independents  and  Pilgrim 
Fathers,  and  a  century  later  the  Quakers.  We  must 
come  down  to  the  Dutchman  William  iii.  for  a  sovereign 
who  really  practised  what  Constantine  so  boldly  sketched 
out  in  the  famous  edict  nearly  fourteen  hundred  years 
before.  Meanwhile  this  idea  has  never  been  realised  in 
the  Eastern  Churches. 

In  point  of  fact  this  law  of  religious  liberty  was  an 
imperial  permit,  emanating  from  the  good  pleasure  of 
Constantine.  It  was  only  the  law  of  the  empire  because 
it  was  the  will  of  the  emperor.  Thus  from  the  first  it 
rested  on  a  very  precarious  basis.  The  world  was  not 
only  not  ripe  for  complete  religious  liberty ;  no  party  in 
State  or  Church  was  really  prepared  to  concede  it  to  an 
opponent.  We  can  scarcely  look  in  the  fourth  century 
for  what  the  greater  part  of  Christendom  is  not  yet  within 
measurable  distance  of  obtaining  or  even  desiring. 
Accordingly  we  must  not  be  at  all  surprised  to  see  that 
from  licensing  all  religions — and  so  liberating  Christianity 
from  penal  restrictions — Constantine  quickly  proceeds  to 
patronising  the  religion  he  has  publicly  adopted,  nor  that 
the  leaders  of  the  Church  gratefully  accept  his  favours, 
quite  blind  to  the  fact  that  they  are  thereby  selling  their 
liberties,  deliberately  walking  into  a  cage. 

Constantine's    favours     took     two    forms.       First,    he 


38  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

exempted  the  clergy  from  the  obligation  of  filling 
municipal  offices — a  costly,  burdensome  obligation.  This 
was  already  enjoyed  by  the  pagan  priesthood,  so  that  in 
granting  the  privilege  to  the  Christian  clergy  Constantine 
was  only  putting  them  on  a  level  with  the  priests  in  the 
old  temples.  Similarly,  when  in  England  Nonconformist 
ministers  share  with  Established  Church  clergymen 
exemption  from  the  obligation  of  serving  on  juries,  they 
do  not  regard  this  as  a  peculiar  favour  to  Nonconformity. 
Still,  in  both  cases  there  is  a  clear  recognition  of  official 
status.  Constantine's  order  was  confined  to  North  Africa 
in  the  first  instance ;  subsequently  it  was  extended  to  the 
whole  empire. 

Second,  Constantine  granted  contributions  from  the 
imperial  treasury  for  the  building  of  churches  and  towards 
the  support  of  the  clergy.  It  may  be  said  that  similar 
grants  had  been  made  to  the  pagan  temples  and  their 
officers,  so  that  this  was  a  case  of  concurrent  endowment. 
But,  as  far  as  we  know,  all  Constantine's  favour  in  this 
form  was  shown  to  the  Christians.  Here  was  indeed  a 
dangerous  power — the  power  of  the  purse.  In  accepting 
the  money  of  the  State  the  Church  was  deliberately 
putting  herself  more  or  less  under  the  control  of  the 
State.  Besides,  this  favouritism,  which  was  a  departure 
from  the  large  liberalism  of  the  Edict  of  Milan  in  spirit, 
though  not  in  the  letter,  roused  the  jealousy  and  alarm  of 
the  old  temple  authorities.  Constantine  was  thus  pro- 
voking to  enmity  a  party  with  huge  vested  interests  at 
stake.  This  party  found  a  champion  in  Licinius,  the 
second  Augustus.  Licinius  could  have  been  only  a  half- 
hearted supporter  of  the  Edict  of  Milan ;  he  was  unable 
to  resist  Constantine's  desire  for  his  concurrence  when  it 
was  issued,  had  he  wished  to  do  so.  But  at  a  later  time 
he  threw  in  his  lot  with  the  disaffected  pagan  party,  and 
by  means  of  the  support  he  thus  obtained  broke  connection 
with  Constantine  and  claimed  independence.  So  long  as 
he  could  hold  his  own  he  pursued  an  openly  pagan  policy, 
forbidding  the  Christians  to    assemble   in  their  churches, 


CONSTANTINE   THE   GREAT  39 

and  leaving  them  only  to  worship  in  the  open  air,  excluding 
thcni  from  the  civil  service,  hanishing  some,  and  perhaps 
even  proceeding  to  inflict  the  death  penalty  in  a  few  cases. 
But  before  he  could  go  far  in  this  direction  his  defeat  by 
Constantino,  followed  by  his  death,  put  an  end  to  the 
pagan  reaction  (a.d.  324). 

As  sole  emperor,  Constantine  now  had  a  free  hand. 
For  the  second  time,  flushed  with  victory  over  a  champion 
of  paganism,  he  proceeded  to  a  much  more  emphatic 
patronage  of  Christianity;  he  even  issued  a  rescript 
urging  his  subjects  to  become  Christians.  There  was  no 
direct  violation  of  the  edict  of  toleration  in  this  decree. 
Everybody  was  still  left  free  to  follow  his  own  choice. 
The  decree  was  but  an  exhortation.  Still  it  meant  much. 
Next  we  see  Constantine  interfering  in  matters  of  Church 
government.  In  the  first  instance  this  was  on  the 
invitation  of  the  Christians  for  the  settlement  of  the 
Novatian  schism,  a  schism  mainly  turning  on  a  question  of 
discipline.  Constantine  was  reluctant  to  interfere,  and 
when  he  did  so,  he  wisely  appointed  bishops  as  assessors. 
Still,  the  fatal  step  was  taken.  Before  long  emperors 
will  be  seen  tampering  with  ecclesiastical  affairs  on  their 
own  initiative,  without  any  appeal  from  the  Chm'ch,  and 
that  even  in  questions  of  doctrine. 

Nevertheless,  Constantine  was  careful  not  to  com- 
pletely alienate  the  pagan  party.  He  retained  the  office 
of  Pontifex  Maximus  and  thus  secured  his  influence  at 
Rome.  He  had  the  image  of  the  sun-god  impressed  on 
one  side  of  his  coins,  while  the  monogram  of  Christ  was 
stamped  on  the  other  side.  He  ordered  the  Government 
offices  and  law  courts  to  be  closed  on  the  Christian  day  of 
worship,  but  he  referred  to  this  day  by  its  pagan  title  as 
"  the  venerable  day  of  the  sun."  He  went  so  far  in  the 
direction  of  syncretism  as  to  order  a  prayer  of  pure 
theism  for  use  in  his  army.  His  conception  of  Chris- 
tianity was  never  very  profound.  At  heart  he  seems 
to  have  been  an  eclectic  theist  with  a  distinct  pre- 
ference for  Christianity  and  a  measure  of    real  belief  in 


40  THE   rjREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

it;    and  in   these    respects    his   State    pohcy    reflects    his 
own  ideas. 

The  eHect  of  Christianity  on  legislation,  always  slow 
in  so  conservative  a  region  where  precedent  is  power, 
begins  hopefully  under  Constantine.  The  emperor  put  an 
end  to  crucifixion — as  a  desecration  of  the  cross  of  Christ, 
the  breaking  of  the  legs  of  criminals,  and  the  branding  of 
slaves.  According  to  Eusebius  he  forbade  sacrifices  to 
idols,  divination,  the  erecting  of  images,  and  gladiatorial 
combats.^  If  so,  the  law  was  a  dead  letter ;  for  certainly 
all  these  things  went  on  for  generations  after  the  time  of 
Constantine.  Possibly  we  have  here  a  reference  to  some 
of  his  pious  exhortations,  such  as  that  in  which  he  invited 
all  his  subjects  to  become  Christians.  But  although 
Constantine  even  patronised  the  amphitheatre  as  late  as  the 
year  323,  when  he  received  a  panegyric  for  so  doing,  and 
two  years  later  sanctioned  the  establishment  of  new 
gladiatorial  games  at  Cpello  in  Umbria — the  force  of  public 
passion  for  this  cruel  sport  being  simply  irresistible  among 
the  Italians — it  was  never  introduced  into  his  new  city  of 
Constantinople.  Then,  though  slavery  was  continued, 
masters  were  forbidden  to  kill  or  torture  their  slaves, 
and  manumission  was  facilitated.  The  cruel  lot  of 
prisoners  was  mitigated  ;  they  were  not  to  be  so  chained 
up  as  to  suffer  from  want  of  light  and  air.  Debtors  were 
not  to  be  scourged,  and  they  were  to  be  brought  to  trial 
as  quickly  as  possible.  Above  all,  the  position  of  woman 
was  elevated.  Adultery  was  treated  as  a  crime  to  be 
punished ;  concubinage  was  forbidden,  though  intercourse 
with  a  female  slave  was  not  regarded  as  such  ;  the  old 
freedom  of  divorce  was  abolished ;  marriage  received  high 
sanctions ;  and  assaults  on  consecrated  virgins  and  widows 
were  made  punishable  with  death.  Thus  Constantine's 
legislation  moved  in  the  direction  of  humaneness  and 
purity — two  characteristic  ideas  of  Christian  ethics. 
J  Vif.  dm.  jv.  25. 


CHAPTER   III 

ARIANISM 

(a)  The  historians  mentioned  in  the  previous  chapter  ;  Athanasius, 
Orationes  Con.  Arianos,  Hist.  Arianorum,  etc.  ;  fragments  of 
Philostorgius,  the  Arian  historian. 

(6)  Gwatkin,  Arian  Controversy,  1889,  a  masterly  authority ; 
Newman,  Arians  of  the  Fourth  Century,  1838 — the  2nd  edition, 
1854,  is  unaltered,  a  vigorous  but  polemical  treatise  ;  Hefele, 
History  of  the  Councils,  Eng.  Trans.,  vol.  i.,  1872. 

Arianism  caused  the  most  serious  division  in  the  Church 
that  has  occurred  during  the  whole  course  of  the  history  of 
Christendom.  It  was  the  most  momentous  subject  of 
controversy  during  the  fourth  century,  the  age  of  the 
greatest  Fathers  of  the  Eastern  Church,  the  age  of  its 
keenest  polemics  and  most  masterly  theological  literature. 
The  Nicene  Creed,  the  essential  standard  of  doctrine  for 
the  orthodox  in  the  East,  was  formulated  for  the  express 
purpose  of  excluding  and  crushing  this  heresy,  which  at 
times  held  its  head  so  high,  encouraged  by  imperial  favour, 
that  it  threatened  to  dominate  the  Church  and  supplant 
the  rival  orthodox  theology.  So  serious  was  the  question 
deemed  to  be,  that  it  was  treated  as  of  primary  importance 
to  the  State,  and  the  chief  factor  of  politics  throughout 
the  century  was  the  attitude  of  the  emperors  towards 
Arianism.  During  all  this  time  it  was  essentially  a 
question  of  the  Eastern  Church ;  the  West  was  but  little 
affected,  although  a  protagonist  in  the  controversy  was 
Hosius  of  Cordova.  Hilary  of  Poitiers  was  the  only 
Western  theologian  of  importance  to  take  part  in  the  con- 
troversy at  this  early  stage.     Much  later,  after  Ai'ianism  had 


42  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

been  stamped  out  in  the  East,  it  became  dominant  in  the 
West,  coming  in  with  the  invading  Goths  who  were  heretics 
without  knowing  it,  having  become  such  in  a  way  by 
accident,  siinply  because  the  great  missionary  Ulfilas,  to 
whom  they  owed  their  conversion  happened  to  be  an 
Arian.  Thus  the  later  Arianism  of  the  West  was  purely 
adventitious,  a  mere  result  of  the  migration  of  peoples. 
The  real  home  of  Arianism  is  the  East,  and  it  is  with  the 
Eastern  Church  that  the  great  controversy  is  almost 
entirely  concerned.  It  therefore  demands  some  attention 
in  the  present  volume,  although  it  has  been  treated  in  two 
previous  works  of  the  same  Series.^ 

The  origin  of  this  tremendous  controversy,  which  shook 
the  whole  fabric  of  the  Church  down  to  its  foundations — 
like  that  of  many  a  mighty  river  which  may  be  traced 
back  to  a  little  runnel  of  water  trickling  down  the  hillside 
—  was  seemingly  quite  insignificant.  Arius,  from  whom 
the  heresy  derives  its  name,  was  a  presbyter  of  the  Church 
at  Alexandria,  where  the  presbyterate  retained  its  import- 
ance longer  than  in  other  places,  and  he  exercised  the 
functions  of  pastor  in  the  neighbouring  village  church  of 
Baukalis  from  about  the  year  a.d.  313.  Five  years  later 
(a.d.  318)  he  accused  his  bishop  Alexander  of  Sabellianism. 
That  his  motive  in  doing  so  was  jealousy  on  account  of  his 
disappointment  at  not  having  been  elected  to  the  episcopate 
has  not  been  proved,  and  we  must  always  be  on  our  guard 
against  the  personalities  that  are  continually  being  bandied 
to  and  fro  among  the  ecclesiastical  controversialists,  and 
constitute  the  most  painful  and  humiliating  features  of 
Church  history.  Alexander  saved  the  situation  by  turning 
the  tables  on  his  daring  opponent  and  accusing  Arius  of 
false  teaching.  Thus,  as  has  often  happened,  the  heresy- 
hunter  himself  turned  out  to  be  a  heretic.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  in  this  case  that  Arius  was  in  the  wrong.  That 
Alexander  was  not  a  Sabellian  is  proved  by  his  statement 
of  his  views  contained  in  an  important  epistle.  On  the 
other  hand,  undoubtedly  Arius  was  a  heretic,  in  the 
1  Fisher,  History  of  Christian  Doctrine  ;  Rainy,  The  Aneimi  Church. 


ARIANISM  43 

technical  sense  of  the  term  ;  that  is  to  say,  lie  advocated 
private  opinions  that  were  at  variance  with  the  general 
trend  of  Church  teaching. 

Although  Arianisni  sprang  up  in  Alexandria,  its  roots 
have  been  traced  back  to  Antioch.  Origen  had  taught  a 
strong  subordination  doctrine ;  but  he  had  affirmed  the 
eternal  generation  of  the  Son,  and  the  tone  and  temper  of 
his  thought  were  alien  to  what  we  see  in  Arianism.  The 
great  Alexandrian  theology  was  intensely  Platonic,  and 
the  development  of  the  orthodox  faith  during  the  fourth 
century  was  largely  controlled  by  an  infusion  of  Platonism ; 
but  the  dry,  hard,  logical  method  of  Arius  was  Aristotelian, 
and  so  was  that  of  the  school  of  Antioch.  Harnack  says, 
"  This  school  is  the  parent  of  Arian  doctrine  and  Lucian 
its  head  is  the  Arius  before  Arius."  ^  Nevertheless,  Pro- 
fessor Gwatkin  traces  it  to  Alexandrian  heathenism. 

The  gravamen  of  Arius'  objection  to  Alexander's  teaching 
was  the  doctrine  of  the  eternity  of  the  Son  of  God,  which, 
he  maintained,  involved  Sabellianism.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  non-eternity  of  the  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity  was 
the  starting-point  of  Arianism.  Pressed  into  a  corner, 
Arius  will  not  say  that  "  there  was  a  time  when  He  was 
not,"  because  time  itself  did  not  then  exist,  since  it  began 
with  creation,  and  He  was  before  all  other  things ;  but  he 
affirms  that  "there  was  when  He  was  not."  As  he 
develops  his  system  the  following  features  emerge : — 

1.  The  unity  of  God.  He  alone  is  neither  generated 
nor  created — eternal,  essential  being,  to  ov,  Deity  apart 
from  all  else.  Arius  is  in  sympathy  with  the  heathen  and 
later  Jewish  conception  of  the  transcendence  of  God. 

2.  The  independent  personality  of  Christ.  Here  Arius 
is  in  direct  antagonism  to  Sabellianism.  Extreme  op- 
ponents of  Arius — Marcellus,  Photius,  etc. — went  over 
the  knife-edge  of  orthodoxy  on  the  other  side  and  became 
Sabellian.  Every  system  of  thought  that  has  enlisted 
the  sympathies  of  earnest  men  has  its  merits,  and  one 
of  the  merits  of  Arianism  is  that  it  tended  to  rescue  the 

^  History  of  Dogma,  Eug.  Traus.,  vol.  iv.  p.  3. 


44  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

idea  of  a  Mediator,  of  an  actujil  personal  Redeemer  of  the 
world  revealed  in  the  gospel,  au  idea  that  was  becoming 
swamped  in  metaphysical  conceptions  of  the  Godhead. 

3.  The  origin  of  Christ  by  creation.  According  to 
Arius,  the  sonship  of  Chiist  was  only  a  figurative  con- 
ception. God  could  not  really  have  a  Son  begotten  of 
His  own  nature.  Christ  must  have  been  made,  created 
out  of  nothing,  and  that  by  the  will  of  God.  He  was 
made  before  all  other  creatures ;  and  the  difference 
between  His  origin  and  that  of  the  rest  of  the  universe 
was  that  He  was  created  directly  by  God,  while  all  other 
existences  that  came  into  being  were  created  through  Him. 

4.  He  had  no  human  soul.  The  exalted  being  Christ 
came  down  and  was  incarnate  in  a  human  body ;  that 
was  all.  Thus  the  problem  of  the  nature  of  Christ 
was  simplified.  There  was  no  complexity  of  a  double 
consciousness. 

5.  Christ  was  naturally  mutable.  He  could  turn  to 
evil,  if  He  so  chose. 

6.  A  somewhat  inconsistent  part  of  the  system  was  the 
contention  that  Christ  received  Divine  honours  in  recogni- 
tion of  His  worthy  conduct.  At  this  point  Arianism  is 
linked  on  to  adoptionism.  It  is  not  easy  to  harmonise 
such  a  conception  with  Arius's  idea  of  the  pre-existing 
Christ ;  but  the  reconciliation  is  sought  in  the  Divine 
foreknowledge.  God  foresaw  how  Christ  would  conduct 
Himself  and  rewarded  Him  accordingly  by  anticipation. 

Arianism  was  an  extremely  simple  system ;  herein 
was  its  reconmiendation.  It  professed  to  be  free  from 
the  obscurities  of  the  popular  theology.  It  banished 
mystery  from  religion.  Its  appeal  was  to  logic.  Further, 
it  claimed  to  be  conservative,  falling  back  on  the  verbal 
sense  of  Scripture  against  the  speculative  elaborations  of 
metaphysical  theology;  but  its  range  of  scriptural 
authority  was  small,  a  mere  group  of  texts  arbitrarily 
selected  and  in  some  cases  wilfully  misapplied.  In  this 
matter  both  parties  were  almost  equally  guilty  of  offending 
against  sound  principles  of  t(^\tual  exegesis. 


ARIANISM  45 

Still,  when  we  make  due  allowance  for  all  such  con- 
siderations, it  may  yet  strike  us  as  remarkable  that  a 
system  so  artificial  in  structure,  and  so  harsh  in  outline, 
should  have  won  its  way  in  the  Church.  The  objections 
to  it  were  obvious.  On  the  face  of  it  Arianism  toned 
down  the  honour  that  enthusiastic  Christians  were  eagerly 
offering  to  their  Lord.  While  it  allowed  of  a  Mediator, 
this  strange  being  was  neither  God  nor  man,  neither 
united  to  the  Divine  on  the  one  hand  nor  to  the  human 
on  the  other.  Thus  the  gulf  still  remained  unbridged, 
and  all  that  was  offered  was  a  monstrous  figure  standing 
isolated  in  the  middle  of  it ;  or  if  we  view  the  idea  another 
way,  while  Christ  was  not  one  with  us  in  human  nature, 
He  did  belong  to  our  created  nature,  so  that  if  we  think 
of  God  on  one  side  of  the  gulf  and  creation  on  the  other, 
Christ  adheres  completely  to  the  side  of  creation,  and 
there  is  no  real  mediation  at  all.  Nevertheless,  it  is 
allowed  that  some  measure  of  worship  may  be  offered  to 
Him,  and  He  may  be  called  God  in  a  secondary  sense,  as 
the  locust  is  called  the  "  great  power  "  of  God.^  But  then, 
since  He  is  but  a  creature,  such  worship  is  the  worship 
of  the  creature,  that  is  to  say,  idolatry.  The  essential 
paganism  of  the  scheme  was  apparent  to  Athanasius,  who 
urged  this  charge  home  against  the  Arians.  They  were 
importing  the  demi-god  of  the  heathen  world  into  the 
Church  of  the  only  true,  living  God. 

Since  these  objections  are  obvious,  we  may  wonder 
how  it  came  about  that  Arianism  got  a  lodgment  in  the 
Church,  spread  so  rapidly,  and  attained  to  so  much 
influence  as  was  the  case.  Something  may  be  set  down 
to  the  personal  fascination  of  its  author.  Athanasius' 
first  attack  on  the  heresy  is  based  on  its  name,  the 
Arians  naming  themselves  after  a  man  while  the 
orthodox  called  themselves  simply  "  Christians."  This 
is  significant,  showing  that  the  name  was  not  a  label 
attached  to  them  by  their  enemies,  like  the  title 
"  Swedenborgian "  commonly  given  to  the  community 
^  See  Athanasius,  Orat.  Co)U.  Arian,  i.  6. 


46  THK   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

that  calls  itself  the  "  New  Church."  The  Arians  were 
proud  of  Arius — at  least  this  was  the  case  in  the  early 
days ;  later,  when  opprobrium  had  been  heaped  on  his 
name,  some  of  them  were  not  so  eager  to  claim  it. 

Arius  appears  before  us  as  a  strange  figure — a  tall, 
gaunt  man,  wearing  his  hair  in  a  tangled  mass,  with  a 
wild  look  in  his  eyes,  and  restless  convulsive  movements 
in  his  limbs,  ascetic  in  his  habits,  generally  grave  and 
silent,  but  capable  of  fierce  excitement  when  fairly 
roused,  and  very  attractive  in  the  earnestness  of  his 
manner  and  the  sweetness  of  his  voice.  He  resorted  to 
a  dubious  device  for  the  popularising  of  his  doctrines, 
composing  dry,  didactic  hymns  in  the  metre  of  vulgar 
banquet  songs,  to  the  scandal  of  sober  Churchmen,  but 
indicating  that  he  knew  how  to  catch  the  ear  of  the 
public.  These  hymns  would  be  sung  to  lively  music  and 
dancing  —a  curious  compoimd  of  worldly  gaiety  and 
orgiastic  pagan  practices,  inherited  from  the  ancient 
religion  of  the  Egyptians  and  continued  down  to  the 
present  day  in  the  weird  practices  of  the  dervishes. 

Still,  it  is  doubtful  if  Arius  would  have  made  much 
lieadway  if  he  had  been  left  to  propagate  his  ideas  on 
their  own  merits  and  only  by  the  force  of  his  unaided 
influence.  Alexander  summoned  a  synod  of  neighbouring 
bishops  which  excommunicated  the  heretic,  who  then  left 
Egypt  and  visited  leading  ecclesiastics  in  Syria  and  Asia 
Minor,  from  some  of  whom  he  received  sympathetic 
treatment.  But  there  was  one  man  whose  adhesion  was 
the  making  of  his  cause.  This  was  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia, 
the  most  powerful  prelate  in  the  East,  an  old  friend  of 
Arius,  who  soon  became  the  real  leader  of  the  party,  and 
to  whom  must  be  attributed  the  political  character  of 
the  movement  in  its  subsequent  development.  "With  the 
obscure  presbyter  Arius  it  was  only  a  ferment  working 
locally  ;  under  the  hands  of  the  great  bishop  Eusebius  it 
leaped  into  imperial  importance,  so  that  the  settlement  of 
it  bec<ame  a  first  concern  of  the  State  with  Constantine 
himself.      After  this,  political  intrigues  in  the  interests  of 


ARIANISM  47 

men  and  parties  had  more  influence  in  its  dominance 
and  extension  than  theological  arguments.  Although  for 
long  periods  Arianism  was  the  recognised  religion  of 
Eastern  Christendom,  this  was  mainly  hecause  the  plots 
of  diplomacy  had  secm-ed  for  it  imperial  favour.  A 
majority  of  the  bishops  of  the  Greek  portion  of  the 
Church  were  Arian  for  a  time,  but  only  because  the 
adherents  of  the  opposite  party  had  been  violently 
deposed  by  acts  of  despotism  and  their  successors  thrust 
into  their  sees  and  imposed  ujjon  their  flocks  against  the 
will  of  the  people.  There  is  nothing  to  show  that  the 
main  body  of  the  Church  in  the  East  was  ever*  Arian ; 
and  certainly  this  was  never  the  case  in  the  West. 
Lastly,  we  must  notice  how  the  Arians  obtained  support 
from  an  unexpected  quarter  quite  adventitiously,  by  the 
adhesion  of  the  Meletians.  These  people,  the  party  of 
Meletius,  a  bishop  of  Lycopohs,  the  modern  Assiut — in 
the  fourth  century  second  only  in  importance  to 
Alexandria,  who  had  been  condemned  purely  on  grounds 
of  discipline  and  apart  from  any  suspicion  of  doctrinal 
error,  threw  in  their  lot  with  the  Arians,  and  so  helped 
to  swell  the  body  of  the  heretics  in  common  opposition 
to  the  dominant  majority. 

Fortified  by  the  encouragement  he  had  obtained  when 
on  his  travels,  Arius  returned  to  Alexandria  and  organised 
a  church  of  his  followers  in  defiance  of  his  bishop.  This 
was  an  act  of  independence  which  could  only  be  regarded 
by  an  ecclesiastic  as  one  of  rebellion.  The  crisis  was 
becoming  acute.  So  widespread  was  the  quarrel  now, 
and  so  bitter  the  spirit  it  was  engendering,  that  it 
became  a  matter  of  serious  concern  to  Constantine.  This 
is  a  plain  proof  of  its  great  importance. 

Here  is  a  pitiable  situation  indeed,  a  most  painful 
instance  of  the  irony  of  history.  No  sooner  has  peace 
been  established  between  State  and  Church  than  the  State 
interferes  to  preserve  the  peace  of  the  Church.  Still  half 
a  pagan,  quite  a  novice,  in  character  sadly  below  the 
Christian   standard,  the  recently  converted  emperor  finds 


48  THE   ORERK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

it  necessary  to  rebuke  tlie  faults  (if  the  Church  in  order 
to  prevent  it  frmu  ruinin}^'  its  own  cause.  One  iiii^ht 
have  tliought  that  the  Christians  would  have  blushed 
for  shame  to  have  brought  down  upon  their  heads  the 
moral  disapproval  of  a  convert.  But  that  would  be 
viewing  the  case  from  the  emperor's  point  of  view.  To 
Alexander  and  his  friends  it  would  appear  in  a  very 
different  light.  Constantine  wrote  a  letter  to  Alexander 
urging  a  settlement  of  the  dispute,  on  the  calm  assumption 
that  the  ground  of  it  was  quite  trivial,  and  treating 
the  bishops  concerned  almost  as  though  they  were  a  group 
of  quarrelling  schoolboys.  Thus  he  says  in  the  course  of 
his  letter :  "  For  the  cause  of  your  ditference  has  not 
been  any  of  the  leading  doctrines  or  precepts  of  the 
Divine  law,  nor  has  any  new  heresy  respecting  the  worship 
of  God  arisen  among  you.  You  are  in  truth  of  one  and 
the  same  judgment;  you  may  therefore  well  join  in 
communion  and  fellowship.  For  as  long  as  you  continue 
to  contend  about  these  small  and  very  insignificant 
questions,  it  is  not  fitting  that  so  large  a  portion  of 
God's  people  should  be  under  the  direction  of  your 
judgment,  since  you  are  thus  divided  between  your- 
selves." ^  In  reading  such  words  we  do  not  know 
whether  to  admire  most  the  amazing  arrogance  that 
presumes  to  attempt  the  settlement  of  religious  difference 
by  a  message  of  imperial  authority,  or  the  sublime 
simplicity  that  is  totally  incapable  of  perceiving  the 
gravity  of  the  question  at  issue  or  the  depth  of  the 
fissure  in  the  Church  that  it  is  producing.  Not  a 
"  new  heresy  " — "  one  and  the  same  judgment " — "  small 
and  very  insignificant  questions  " — these  are  phrases  that 
indicate  total  incapacity  to  grasp  the  actual  issues  of 
the  dispute.  The  letter  is  a  living,  characteristic  docu- 
ment, in  every  paragraph  revealing  its  writer  as  the 
man  of  the  world  who  would  brush  aside  the  most 
serious  theological  discussions  as  mere  hair-splitting,  but 
also  the  earnest,  practical  statesman  who  is  anxious  to 
1  Fit.  Const.  iL  70,  71. 


ARIANISM  49 

establish  peace  in  the  comniunity  for  the  goveruinent  of 
wliicli  he  is  lesponsihle. 

Coiistantine's  object  was  excellent;  l)iit  it  was  not 
long  before  he  learnt  that  the  first  method  he  had 
employed  for  secnring  it  was  utterly  futile.  This  olive 
branch  had  no  effect  whatever ;  the  document  was 
literally  a  dead  letter.  It  had  been  accompanied  by 
one  of  the  emperor's  chaplains,  a  man  highly  venerated 
in  the  Church,  who  was  to  play  a  prominent  part  in  the 
subsequent  negotiations,  Hosius,  the  bishop  of  Cordova. 
But  even  this  good  and  able  man's  efforts  at  effecting 
a  settlement  on  the  spot  were  quite  abortive. 

Then  the  emperor  resorted  to  another  method  much 
wiser,  much  more  practical.  He  summoned  the  bishops  of 
the  whole  Church  to  discuss  the  question  and  settle  it  by 
vote.  This  is  the  first  instance  of  any  attempt  at  a  gather- 
ing representing  the  general  body  of  Christians  throughout 
the  world.  Local  councils  had  been  held  in  various  districts 
— in  Asia,  at  Home,  at  Aries,  at  Carthage,  at  Alexandria, 
and  elsewhere.  Now  for  the  first  time  there  was  sum- 
moned a  general  council,  as  distinguished  from  a  provincial 
synod.  It  was  the  large-minded,  widely  comprehensive 
imperialism  of  Constantine  that  gave  birth  to  the  idea. 
The  emperor  summoned  the  council  and  paid  the  expenses 
of  the  members  out  of  the  funds  of  the  State.  This 
precedent  was  so  much  recognised  in  the  summoning  of  later 
councils  that  the  Church  of  England  formally  recognised  it  in 
the  21st  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  :  "  General  councils  may 
not  be  gathered  together  but  by  the  commandment  and  will 
of  princes."  Still,  this  council  aimed  at  going  beyond  the 
limits  of  the  empire  in  including  the  whole  Church,  and  in 
point  of  fact  two  bishops  from  beyond  its  border — John  of 
Persia  and  Theophilus  of  Scythia — were  present  in  the 
assembly.  The  great  idea  was  that  the  Church  was  to  settle 
its  disputes  for  itself.  "  Councils,"  writes  Dean  Stanley 
when  summing  up  their  characteristics,  "  are  also  the  first 
precedents  of  the  principle  of  representative  government."  ^ 

^  Eastern  Church,  Lecture  ii. 

4 


50  THE   GRKEK    AND    EASTERN    CHUTICHES 

Tresbyters  and  deacons  were  present,  as  well  as  bishops  ;  and 
the  latter  were  really  popular  representatives,  since  they 
had  been  elected  by  universal  suffrage  in  tlieir  churches. 

Tbis  first  and  most  momentous  general  council  met  in 
the  year  A.D.  325  at  Nica^a,  a  small  town  at  tlie  head  of  a 
sea  locli  where  the  Bithynian  mountains  descend  towards 
the  shore  not  far  from  Nicomedia,  the  emperor's  Eastern 
capital  before  the  building  of  Constantinople.  The  quarrel 
in  the  Church  that  occasioned  the  summoning  of  the  bishops 
arose  in  the  East  and  essentially  concerned  the  East ;  the 
council  met  in  the  East ;  it  consisted  almost  entirely  of  tlie 
representatives  of  Eastern  churches.  Altbough  bishops  had 
been  called  from  all  over  the  empire,  and  beyond,  and  although 
the  proceedings  of  the  council  were  recognised  and  endorsed 
in  the  West,  it  was  to  all  intents  and  purposes  an  Oriental 
assembly.  The  same  may  be  said  of  all  the  ancient 
councils ;  they  were  all  held  in  the  East  and  they  all  con- 
sisted almost  entirely  of  Eastern  prelates.  At  Nicsea  there 
were  only  seven  bishops  from  the  whole  area  covered  by 
the  Latin  Church.  Sylvester,  the  bishop  of  Eonie,  was  not 
present,  his  age  being  his  reason  or  excuse  for  not  attending, 
and  he  was  represented  by  two  presbyters.  This  was  in  no 
sense  a  papal  council.  It  was  not  summoned  by  the  pope ; 
it  was  not  presided  over  by  the  pope.  Hefele  argues  that 
Hosius,  who  sat  in  a  place  of  honour  next  to  the  emperor, 
was  really  in  this  position  because  he  represented  the  West 
for  the  pope.  But  his  close  relations  with  Constantine 
and  the  leading  part  he  had  taken  in  the  preliminary 
negotiations  added  to  the  weight  of  his  personal  character 
will  account  for  the  dignified  position  that  was  accorded  to 
him.  Besides,  Sylvester's  representation  by  the  two  pres- 
byters is  inconsistent  with  this  notion.  In  the  absence  of 
the  emperor  Hosius  appears  to  have  presided  in  turn  with 
three  other  bishops,  Eustathius  of  Antioch,  Alexander  of 
Alexandria,  and  Eusebius  of  Ciesarea — the  learned  historian 
wbom  we  must  not  confound  with  the  Arian  leader, 
Eusebius  of  Nicomedia.  Tbese  three  were  all  Eastern 
bishops. 


ARIANISM  51 

The  dangerous  temper  of  the  assembly  was  seen  at  the 
commencement,  in  the  fact  that  a  number  of  letters  con- 
taining charges  against  various  bishops  were  presented  to 
the  emperor ;  and  Constantine's  good  sense  and  pacific 
intentions  were  as  quickly  revealed  by  his  calling  for  a 
brazier  at  his  first  meeting  with  the  council,  and  burning  the 
whole  sheaf  of  them  unread.  He  had  come  to  make  peace, 
and  his  poUcy  was  toleration,  not  repression,  or  expulsion, 
or  persecution.  It  was  not  his  fault  that  the  course  of  the 
discussion  took  another  turn.  Constantine  spoke  in  a  gentle 
voice  and  with  a  modest  demeanour,  calling  himself  a  bishop, 
evidently  witli  the  sole  object  of  softening  the  asperity  of 
the  debate  and  obtaining  a  pacific  decision.  But  Arius  was 
soon  denounced  in  the  most  angry  terms  and  expelled  from 
the  assembly. 

Members  of  the  lower  clergy,  although  perhaps  they  had 
no  votes,  were  allowed  to  be  present  and  contribute  to  the 
discussion,  so  free  and  open  was  it.  This  liberty  gave  his 
opportunity  to  the  hero  of  the  whole  controversy,  the  one 
man  who  was  soon  to  tower  head  and  shoulders  over  every- 
body else  by  sheer  force  of  intellectual  energy  and  moral 
earnestness,  Alexander's  attendant  deacon,  the  young 
Athanasius.  The  romance  of  the  Arian  period  circles 
round  this  great  man  in  his  strange  adventures,  his  hair- 
breadth escapes,  his  magnanimous  victories ;  but  better 
than  that,  it  is  he  who  lifts  the  whole  controversy  out  of  the 
miserable  arena  of  person  and  party,  seizes  on  its  really  sig- 
nificant features,  and  holds  to  the  vital  issues  notwithstand- 
ing calumny,  spite,  and  brutal  violence,  with  a  tenacity  that 
is  perfectly  heroic  until  he  brings  them  out  to  a  triumpliant 
issue.  Then,  best  of  all,  he  reveals  true  greatness  of  soul 
and  the  generosity  of  a  genuine  Christian  character,  by 
insisting  only  on  what  is  vital,  by  labouring  to  bury  the  old 
quarrel,  by  gladly  welcoming  back  old  opponents  when  they 
return  to  what  he  holds  to  be  the  true  faith. 

Guided  by  this  young  deacon,  who  soon  proved  himself 
to  be  the  most  masterly  theologian  present,  the  assembly 
that  had  quickly  determined  to  stamp  out  Arianism  was 


52  THK    fiRKKK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

able  to  accomplish   the  more  dillicult  task  of  settling  the 
positive  creed  of  the  Church.     And  yet  Athanasius  was  far 
too   real   and    large-minded   to    care   much   for   the   mere 
phrases  of  any  creed.     It  is  a  significant  fact  that  while  he 
is  the  indomitaljle  champion  of  the  Nicene  ideal,  he  rarely 
uses  in  his  writings  the  term  that  became  the  watchword 
of  the  Nicene  party  and  their  battle-cry  in  conflict  with 
opponents — the  word  Ilomoousios}     At  an  early  stage  of 
the  discussion  the  Arians  saw  that  there  was  no  chance  of 
their  own  specific  phrases  being  allowed  by  the   council. 
Accordingly  they  fell  back  on  Scripture  language.     In  their 
simplicity  the  majority  of  the  Fathers  seemed  disposed  to 
acquiesce  in  this  way  out  of  the  difficulty.     Then  a  bomb- 
shell was  thrown  into  the  meeting  in  the  shape  of  a  letter 
from  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  declaring  the  assertion  that 
the  Son  was  uncreated  to  be  equivalent  to  saying  that  He 
was  of   one  essence  {homoousios)   with   the  Father.       The 
assembly   seized    on    the    word;    it   was   just   what    they 
wanted.      The   Son   was   of  one   essence  with  the  Father. 
So  the  fight  raged  round  this  word.     Here  the  Arians  had 
a  certain  advantage  over  their  opponents.     There  was  a 
taint   of   heresy  about   it.      We   first   meet   with   it  in   a 
description  of  the  notions  of  the  Gnostic  Valentmus.^    And 
although,  according  to  Pamphilus,  it  was  used  by  Origen, 
and  Tertullian  employs  the  Latin  equivalent  of  the  rela- 
tion of  the  Son  to  the  Father,^  it  had  been  subsequently 
condemned  in  a  synod  at  Antioch  in  connection  with  the 
heresy  of  Paul  of  Samosata,  either  as  descriptive  of  his  own 
idea  of  the  Godhead,  or  in  repudiation  of  Sabellian  ten- 
dencies by  his  opponents.     Thus  the  Arians  were  able  to 
appeal  to  precedent,  and  pose  as  conservatives,  when  really 
appealing  to  prejudice.      These  two  courses — the  claim  to 
use  only  Bible  language  in  opposition  to  the  defining  phrases 
of  scientific  theology,  and  the  objection  to  a  dubious  term 
as  a  dangerous  innovation  in  the  language  of  the  Church — 
gave  Eusebius  and  his  friends  some  hold  on  the  majority  of 

*  6/j.oov(nos.  ^  Si-e  Irenoeus,  Adv.  Hcer.  i.  1, 

•  UnitaU  Substanlice,  Apol.  xii.  ;  cf.  Adv.  Praxean.  ii. 


ARIANISM  53 

the  council,  which  consisted  of  country  pastors  of  no  theo- 
logical pretensions.  It  became  necessary  to  expose  the 
Arian  tactics,  and  this  was  done  successfully.  Nevertlicless, 
when  the  reaction  came  it  was  made  apparent  that  the 
final  decision  of  the  council  had  been  rather  acquiesced  in 
by  the  majority  than  intelligently  conceived  and  earnestly 
desired.  Certainly  the  majority  were  not  Arian ;  but 
neither  were  they  at  this  time  convinced  of  the  necessity 
of  the  technical  language  of  the  opponents  of  Arianism. 
Left  to  themselves  they  would  have  been  satisfied  with  a 
simpler  solution ;  but  they  were  overawed  by  a  few  men 
of  superior  culture  and  great  determination — especially 
Alexander,  Athanasius,  and  Hosius.  It  was  in  this  way 
that  at  length  they  were  led  to  give  an  almost  unanimous 
vote  for  the  final  definition. 

The  creed  thus  adopted  was  based  on  an  old  Palestinian 
confession  introduced  by  Eusebius  of  Csesarea.  Hitherto 
there  had  been  no  one  form  of  words  accepted  by  all  Chris- 
tians as  an  expression  of  their  faith.  Although  the  "  rule 
of  faith  "  was  recognised  by  Irenaeus  and  insisted  on  with 
great  vehemence  by  Tertullian,  this  could  not  have  existed 
in  any  rigid  verbal  form,  because  it  is  variously  worded  in 
different  places.  Therefore  the  phrase  would  seem  to  repre- 
sent simply  a  generally  understood  common  agreement  of 
belief.  Still,  as  early  as  this  time,  i.e.  by  about  the  end  of 
the  second  century,  we  have  the  Apostles'  Creed  at  Eome 
in  its  primitive  form.  This,  which  is  the  most  elementary  of 
the  creeds,  is  based  on  the  baptismal  formula,^  the  basis 
of  all  the  creeds.  But  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that 
any  elaborate  creed  was  actually  repeated  by  converts  at 
baptism.  At  first  renunciation  of  the  old  life  and  faith  in 
Christ  were  the  only  requisites.  In  the  ^thiopic  version 
of  the  Apostolical  Constitutions,  representing  the  oldest  text, 
the  candidate  for  baptism  says,  "  I  believe  in  the  only  true 
God,  the  Father  Almighty,  and  in  His  only  begotten  Son, 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  and  Saviour,  aud  in  the  Holy  Ghost 
the  Giver  of  life  " — with  other  phrases  which  must  have 
^  Matt,  xxviii.  19. 


54  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

been  inserted  after  the  council  of  Nicica.  Meanwhile  the 
creeds  were  growing  up,  proljably  as  schedules  of  doctrine 
in  use  by  the  teachers  of  catechumens.  In  this  way  the 
example  of  Rome  was  followed,  and  thus  among  others 
was  produced  that  early  Palestinian  creed  which  was 
adopted  as  the  base  of  the  Nicene  Creed.  When  this  was 
adopted  by  the  council  it  became  the  first  creed  established 
by  authority  for  the  wliole  Church.  Even  then  only  the 
clergy  were  required  to  sign  it.  It  was  a  test  for  the  clergy, 
not  a  condition  of  membership  in  the  Church.  The  laity 
were  not  required  to  assent  to  it.  And  yet  a  great  step 
had  been  taken  towards  the  fixing  of  orthodoxy.  Hitherto 
there  had  been  no  one  formal  standard  by  which  a  Church 
teacher's  doctrine  could  be  settled.  Now  there  was  an  end 
to  this  Ante-Nicene  liberty.  Henceforth  any  divergence 
from  the  established  formula  on  the  part  of  a  bishop  or 
priest  would  involve  the  loss  of  office  and  even  excom- 
munication. A  series  of  stern  anathemas  was  added  to  the 
creed  to  secure  this  end.  All  the  members  of  the  council 
were  required  to  sign  the  document ;  the  five  who  refused 
were  deposed  from  the  posts  they  held  and  expelled  from 
the  Church.  The  Catholic  Church  was  now  to  be  the 
orthodox  Church,  and  orthodoxy  was  made  the  test 
of  Catholicity. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  should  be  noted  that  points  not 
in  the  creed  were  left  open.  When  we  consider  how  large 
a  part  of  the  field  of  theology  was  thus  not  fenced  in, 
the  silence  becomes  significant :  moreover,  if  a  standard  of 
orthodoxy  was  necessary,  here  was  one  that  guarded  the 
very  citadel  of  the  faith.  After  all,  when  we  penetrate 
beliind  phrases  to  facts,  we  see  that  with  an  earnest, 
large-minded  man  such  as  Athanasius  the  real  test  was 
not  subscription  to  a  liighly  technical  creed ;  it  was  what 
that  subscription  implied,  namely,  loyalty  to  the  Divine- 
human  Christ. 

Some  other  matters  were  also  settled  at  the  council  of 
Nic.nea.  The  Paschal  controversy,  which  had  divided  some 
of  the  churches  of  Asia  Minor  who   kept  Easter   on  the 


ARIANISM  55 

Jewish  plan  only  according  to  the  day  of  the  month,  from 
the  chuichos  of  tlic  West  and  others  that  agreed  with  them 
who  fixed  it  according  to  the  day  of  the  week,  was  decided 
in  favour  of  the  Western  usage.  At  the  time  many 
thouglit  tliis  as  important  as  the  Arian  question.  The 
Meletians  were  condemned  and  their  ordination  disallowed. 
Lastly,  certain  canons  of  discipline  were  passed.  But  the 
council  had  been  summoned  to  settle  the  Arian  dispute  and 
its  decision  on  this  was  absolute  and  peremptory.  Then 
Constantine  came  in  with  the  power  of  the  State  to  enforce 
tlie  ruling  of  the  Church,  denouncing  the  Arians  as  "  Por- 
phyrians,"  banishing  Arius  and  his  few  determined  followers, 
and  ordering  all  Arian  books  to  be  burnt — which  indeed 
was  not  so  cruel  as  the  action  of  the  princes  of  the  time  of 
the  Inquisition,  who  burnt  the  heretics  themselves — and 
threatening  death  to  anybody  detected  in  concealing  a 
book  compiled  by  Arius  ^ — a  most  significant,  a  truly 
ominous  threat. 

Nevertheless,  the  dispute  was  far  from  being  settled. 
Instead  of  being  the  end,  this  was  but  the  beginning  of  the 
great  Arian  controversy  which  was  to  ravage  the  Church 
and  almost  rend  the  empire  for  more  than  half  a  century 
longer,  and  even  after  that  to  linger  on  and  break  out 
again  in  unexpected  quarters.  It  is  true  that  at  first  the 
Arian  protest  was  reduced  to  insignificant  proportions. 
Two  of  Arius's  friends  deserted  him  and  signed  the  creed ; 
80  that  of  the  five  who  had  supported  Arius  throughout 
the  discussion  only  two  bishops  stood  by  him  at  the .  end 
and  shared  his  penalty  of  exile.  But  a  sign  of  coming 
trouble  might  have  been  detected  in  the  conciliatory  action 
of  one  of  the  most  pacific  of  men.  Eusebius  of  Csesarea, 
the  famous  historian,  the  most  learned  scholar  of  his  day, 
wrote  to  his  Church  explaining  the  sense  in  which  he  had 
signed  the  creed  ;  and  his  explanation  amounted  to  what  was 
afterwards  known  as  "  Semi-Arianism,"  for  he  interpreted 
the  test  word  "  homoousios  "  in  the  sense  of  resemblance, 
saying   that   "  it  suggests  that  the   Son  of  God  bears  no 

*  Sociates,  i.  9. 


56  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

resemblance  to  the  creature,  but  is  in  every  respect  like 
the  Father  only  who  begat  him."  ^  Many  must  have  given 
their  assent  to  tlie  creed  v^^ithout  really  knowing  what  they 
were  signing ;  others  must  have  been  overawed  by  the 
imperial  authority  conjoined  to  the  vehement  insistence 
of  the  majority,  and  when  released  from  the  pressure  of  the 
council  and  the  emperor's  presence  these  people  soon 
showed  that  they  had  no  love  for  the  creed,  and  some  of 
them  ventured  to  come  forward  as  champions  of  Arius. 
Then  an  immense  weight  was  swung  into  the  scale  of  re- 
action. Coustautine  recalled  the  banished  bishops  and 
ordered  the  restoration  of  Arius.  This  amazing  change  of 
front  has  been  attributed  to  the  inBuence  of  his  sister 
Constantia,  who  was  a  patroness  of  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia, 
to  the  fact — perhaps  due  to  this  court  influence — that 
Eusebius  superseded  Hosius  in  the  emperor's  favour,  to 
the  diplomatic  subtlety  of  the  Arians,  and  to  other  causes, 
all  of  which  may  have  played  their  parts  in  what  had  now 
become  a  political  drama  of  huge  dimensions.  But  we 
must  not  forget  that  Constantino's  aim  throughout  was 
mainly  peace  and  good  order  throughout  his  dominions. 
This  was  apparent  in  his  first  act  of  interference,  the 
famous  letter  to  Alexander.  At  first  he  had  sought  peace 
by  silencing  discussion ;  then,  finding  this  expedient  un- 
successful, he  took  the  course  of  supporting  uniformity  and 
suppressing  dissent ;  this  too  proving  ineffectual,  he 
returned  to  the  idea  of  comprehension  which  he  had 
advocated  at  first.  But  whctlier  by  forcible  uniformity 
or  by  violent  comprehensiveness,  his  aim  was  to  end  the 
irritating  polemic.  First  he  tried  a  sootliing  medicine ; 
next  he  took  up  the  surgeon's  knife ;  finally  he  resorted 
to  ecclesiastical  splints,  a  forcible  binding  together  of  the 
body  of  the  Church  which  he  saw  split  by  faction,  working 
continuously  with  the  one  aim  of  ending  the  dispute.  Thus 
at  last  the  emperor  appears  in  the  paradoxical  role  of  a 
despot  insisting  on  toleration. 

-  Socrates,  i.  8.     There  are  several  versions  and  accounts  of  the  letter, 
but  this  appears  to  b«  the  most  sober  and  reliable. 


ARIANISM  57 

Worn  out  by  fatigues  and  anxieties,  the  aged  Alexander 
died  three  years  after  the  council  of  Nicsea  (a.d.  328), 
nominating  Athanasius  his  deacon  to  be  his  successor 
as  bishop  of  Alexandria.  The  Church  accepted  his 
nomination,  and  duly  elected  the  champion  of  the  faith. 
Nevertheless  this  decision  was  challenged,  and  the  most 
cruel  charges  were  trumped  up  against  the  new  bishop  by 
absolutely  unscrupulous  enemies.  The  next  chapter  in  the 
history  of  the  Arian  dispute  is  largely  occupied  with  the 
romantic  story  of  the  adventures  of  Athanasius,  his  startling 
vicissitudes  of  fortune,  his  hairbreadth  escapes,  his  heroic 
course  of  fidelity,  though  at  times  he  seemed  to  stand  alone. 
But  this  isolation  was  more  apparent  than  real,  for  probably 
at  no  time  was  the  majority  of  people  in  the  Church  Arian. 
The  West  was  always  at  heart  with  Athanasius,  when  this 
was  possible  openly  so  ;  and  great  numbers  of  quiet  people 
in  the  East  did  not  really  acquiesce  in  the  Arian  tyranny 
to  which  they  were  forced  to  submit.  But  Athanasius  never 
allowed  himself  to  be  coerced  into  yielding.  Meanwhile 
there  were  synods,  packed  with  Arian  bishops — at  Tyre, 
removed  to  Jerusalem  (a.d.  335),  and  at  Constantinople 
(a.d.  336).  Athanasius  was  condemned  at  Tyre  on 
trumpery  charges  and  banished  to  Treves  by  Constantino, 
and  Alexander  the  bishop  of  Constantinople,  to  his  con- 
sternation, was  ordered  to  receive  Arius  into  the  Church. 
The  sudden  awful  death  of  Arius  at  the  height  of  his 
triumph  saved  the  bishop  from  his  dilemma.  The  next 
year  Constantine  died,  taking  care  to  be  baptised  in  his  last 
illness. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  LATER  ARIAN   PERIOD 

(o)  Authorities  mentioned  in  previous  chapters ;  Basil,  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  Gregory  of  Nyssa  (Eug.  Trans,  in  Nicene  and 
Post-Nicene  Fathers)  ;  Ammianus  ^larcellinus,  Roman  History 
(Bohn). 

(b)  Works  named  in  previous  chapters ;  Kendall,  The  Emperor 
Julian,  1879  ;  Gaetano  Negri,  Julian  the  Apostate,  2nd  edit. 
1902,  Eng.  Trans.,  1905. 

The  death  of  Constantine  (a.d.  337),  followed  by  the 
division  of  liis  empire  between  his  three  sons,  Constantine  li. 
and  Constans  in  the  West,  and  Constantius  in  the  East, 
introduces  us  to  a  new  chapter  in  the  history  of  Arianism. 
The  first  of  these  rulers  died  three  years  later  while  fighting 
against  his  brother  Constans,  who  thus  became  sole  master 
of  the  West,  and  there  championed  the  Athanasian  cause 
without  difficulty,  since  Arianism  found  all  its  support  in 
the  Eastern  provinces.  Constantius,  on  the  other  hand, 
had  Arian  leanings,  and  he  oppressed  the  orthodoxy  that 
had  seemed  so  triumphant  at  Nicsea  a  few  years  before. 
In  so  acting  he  was  largely  influenced  by  his  jealousy  of 
Athanasius,  whose  influence  rivalled  that  of  the  emperor. 
This  was  a  very  different  policy  from  the  persecution  of  the 
Nicene  party  by  Constantino,  which  liad  always  been  carried 
on  in  the  name  of  toleration,  in  order  to  force  the  Athanasians 
to  fraternise  with  the  Arians.  Pom[)Ous,  vain,  mean,  cruel, 
Constantius  was  quite  inciipable  of  inheriting  his  father's 
large  ideas ;  he  was  frankly  intolerant,  throwing  his  in- 
fluence wholly  into  the  scale  of  the  Arian  faction.  At 
first,  however,  he  was  compelled  to  proceed  warily  and  his 

68 


THE    LATER    ARIAN    PERIOD  59 

initial  actions  even  favoured  the  Nicene  party,  so  that  for 
the  moment  his  accession  might  have  been  regarded  as  the 
end  of  the  oppression  of  orthodoxy.     This  was  simply  due 
to  the  influence  of  the  Western  emperors.      Until  he  was 
firmly  established  in  power,  Constantius  dared  not  openly 
flout  his  brothers'  wishes.      Thus  we  have  the  paradox  that 
the  exile  of  Athauasius,  which  had  lasted  to  the  end  of  the 
reign  of  the  liberal-minded  Constantine,  was  terminated  by 
his  Arianising  son  Constantius  (a.d.  338).      Then  the  patri- 
arch was  welcomed  back  to  Alexandria  in  a  scene  of  popular 
rejoicing  that  was  compared  to  our  Lord's  triumphal  entry 
into  Jerusalem.     It  was  a  shortlived  triumph.     The  wily 
Eusebius   of    Nicomedia,    past    master    of    court    intrigue, 
wormed  himself  into  the  favour  of  Constantius,  got  pro- 
moted to  the  Constantinople  bishopric,  and  thence  swayed 
the  imperial  counsels  so  effectually  that  the  whole  influence 
of  the  Government  went  to  favour  his  party.      The  temper 
of  the  Arians  against  Athanasius  was  positively  spiteful ; 
but  the  new  charge  they  now  brought  against  him  had  some 
show  of  propriety.      It  was  that  he  had  been  reinstated  by 
the  civil  power  without  being  restored  by  the  ecclesiastical 
after  his  deposition  at  the  council  of  Tyre.     What  could 
equal  the  effrontery  of  such  an  accusation  on  the  part  of 
men  who  were  violating  the  decrees  of  the  most  august 
Church  council,  ruthlessly  setting  aside  the  bishops  who 
adhered  to  them,  and  unhesitatingly  accepting  the  emperor's 
interference  to  effect  that  end  ?     Still  it  succeeded ;  and 
Athanasius  was  again  banished  and  a  Cappadocian,  Gregory, 
sent  from  the  court,  was  forced  on  the  protesting  Church 
at  Alexandria  amid  outrageous  scenes  of  violence  (a.d.  339). 
Since  such  unblushing  conduct  was  seen  at  the  head- 
quarters of  orthodoxy  in  the  East,  it  may  be  surprising  to 
observe  how  diplomatically  the  Arians  had  to  work  elsewhere. 
In  wearisome  succession,  several  councils — most  of  them 
packed  meetings — were  held  in   various  places  with   the 
hope  of  getting  a  final  settlement,  and  to  that  end  distinctive 
Arian  phrases  were  dropped  and  more  neutral  expressions 
substituted.      At  Sardica  —  now   Sophia    (a.d.    343)    the 


60  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Athauasiaus  were  actually  in  a  majority,  aud  their  opponents 
could  only  get  their  way  by  removing  farther  east,  to 
Philippopolis — tliere  to  register  their  decisions  comfortably 
without  the  inconvenience  of  opposition.  This  plainly 
shows  that  the  mass  of  the  Church  was  with  Athanasius. 
The  powerful  Eusebius  had  died  the  year  before  the  council 
of  Sardica,  and  two  years  after  that  event  Gregory  also 
died — perhaps  murdered.  Things  were  not  going  well  for 
the  Arians,  and  Constans  seized  the  opportunity  to  force 
his  brother,  under  threat  of  war,  to  let  Athanasius  return 
to  his  see.  Constantius  actually  himself  received  the 
patriarch  quite  graciously.  But  the  death  of  Constans  in 
350  put  an  end  to  the  truce.  Now  that  Constantius  was 
undisputed  master  of  the  empire,  the  Arians  sprang  into 
power  and  became  quite  overbearing  and  most  trucu- 
lent. After  hairbreadth  escapes  and  romantic  adventures 
Athanasius  fled  up  the  Nile  and  took  refuge  with  the 
monks  in  the  desert.  The  venerable  Hosius  and  Liberius 
the  bishop  of  Kome  were  detained  in  captivity  till  their 
patience  was  worn  down  and  they  both  signed  a  virtually 
Arian  confession.  It  was  a  dark  period  for  the  Nicene 
faith.  Still  the  time  was  not  all  lost.  Athanasius  in  his 
quiet  retreat  now  wrote  some  of  his  most  important  works, 
including  his  famous  Four  Discourses  on  Arianism  and  his 
History  of  the  heresy.  So  things  went  on  for  eleven  dreary 
years,  till  the  death  of  Constantius  (a.d.  361)  brought 
deliverance  from  an  unexpected  quarter  in  the  advent  of  a 
pagan  emperor. 

Julian,  the  cousin  and  successor  of  Constantius,  has 
been  execrated  in  the  Church  as  "  the  Apostate."  When  at 
liberty  to  show  his  hand  he  manifested  bitter  antipathy  to 
Christianity,  after  apparently  having  been  baptised  in  his 
infancy — a  fact,  if  this  were  the  case,  for  which  it  would 
be  hard  to  make  him  responsible.  While  in  the  power  of 
his  cousin  Constantius,  he  had  conformed,  as  he  was  bound 
to  do  unless  he  had  developed  a  very  precocious  martyr 
conscience.  But  as  soon  as  he  was  free  to  act  for  himself 
he  threw  off  the  hateful  yoke  of  his  oppressor's  religion. 


THE    LATER    ARIAN    PERIOD  61 

Consider  in  what  light  Christianity  must  have  appeared  to 
the  boy  Julian.     It  was  the  religion  of  the  man  who  had 
murdered  his  father  and  every  member  of  his  family  except 
one    brother,   and    that    merely    in    accordance    with    the 
Oriental  monarch's  drastic  policy  of  clearing  off  dangerous 
rivals.      Then  Julian  never  knew  true  Christianity.      The 
form  in  which  it  had  been  forced  on  him  in  his  boyhood 
was  Arianism  ;  but  that  was  by  no  means  the  worst  feature 
of  the  case — the  great  apostle  of  the  Goths  was  an  Arian  ; 
Avianism    could    present   an   attractive    aspect.      But   the 
joung    prince   had    been   drilled    in  hard  monkish   ways. 
When  he  was  out  walking  he  had  to  keep  his  eyes  fixed  on 
the  pavement  in  order  to  avoid  the  sight  of  vanity.      He 
was  allowed  no  companions  of  his  own  age.     The  specimens 
of  Christian  profession  he  witnessed  in  the   circle  of  his 
acquaintance  had  little  of  the  savour  of  godliness.     They 
were  court  chaplains — adroit  in  political  intrigue,  fierce  par- 
tisans of  polemical  theology,  jealous  ecclesiastics.      Nothing 
was  done    to  awaken  in    Julian    an   appreciation    of    the 
genuine  graces  of  the  gospel.     But  he  was  compelled  to 
attend    the    heartless    services    that   he   inwardly  loathed. 
Who  can  wonder  that  his  young,  ardent  nature  revolted, 
that  his  eager  soul  was  full  of  bitterness  ?     On  the  other 
hand,  forbidden  to  attend  the  lectures  of  the  Neo-Platonist 
Libanius,  who   was   the   greatest  teacher   of  the   day,   he 
obtained  copies  of  them,  read  them  with  the  more  avidity 
since   "  stolen   waters   are   sweet,"   and   at  length  allowed 
himself  to  be  secretly  initiated  at  the  temple  of  Artemis. 
When  Julian  was  permitted  to  go  up  to  the  university  of 
Athens,  he  threw  himself   with  hot  enthusiasm  into   the 
intellectual    life    of    this    centre  of   pagan   learning.     He 
revelled  in   the  classics,   charmed   with   Hellenic  culture, 
both  its  mythology  and  its  philosophy.     Intercourse  with 
the  liberalising  pagan   society  at  Athens  made  him  look 
back   with   disgust  on  the  old  prison  days,  in  which  his 
tutors  had  been  his  jailers.     Here  he  felt  the  pulse  of  a 
larger  life,  free  and  vivacious,  sunny  and  natural. 

Julian  had  no  political  ambition.     Like  Marcus  Aurelius, 


G2  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

a  much  greater  philosophical  emperor,  he  was  distressed  at 
the  call  of  duty  that  compelled  him  to  plunge  into  practical 
affairs  when  he  would  so  much  have  preferred  the  con- 
templative life.  The  difficulties  of  the  empire  having 
constrained  Constantius  to  recall  him  from  his  studies  and 
make  a  Caesar  of  him,  Julian  is  said  to  have  exclaimed, 
"  0  Plato,  what  a  task  for  a  philosopher ! "  Yet  he 
proved  a  capable  general  when  in  charge  of  the  troops  in 
Gaul,  who  forced  him  to  become  emperor  in  opposition  to 
his  cousin,^  and  a  bloody  conflict  would  have  been  the 
result  if  Constantius  had  not  died  just  in  time  to  prevent 
it.  At  first  he  was  welcomed  by  all  classes — Christian  and 
pagan ;  for  the  tyranny  of  Constantius  had  become  odious 
and  unbearable.  Julian  began  his  reign  with  a  proclamation 
of  complete  religious  liberty.  "  Blows  and  injuries,"  he 
said,  "are  not  things  to  change  a  man's  religion."  The 
effect  of  this  reversal  of  policy  was  twofold.  In  the  first 
place,  it  led  to  the  return  of  the  ortliodox  Catholic  bishops 
from  exile.  The  death  of  Constantius  had  been  the  signal 
for  the  people  of  Alexandria  to  rise  in  riot  and  murder 
George  of  Cappadocia,  who,  like  Gregory  at  an  earlier 
period,  had  been  forced  upon  them  as  patriarcli  in  the 
interests  of  Arianism.  Then  once  more  Athanasius  was 
able  to  come  back  to  his  flock. 

In  the  second  place,  the  oppression  of  the  old  pagan 
religions  which  Constans  and  Constantius  had  carried  on 
was  ended  for  the  brief  period  of  the  pagan  emperor's  reign. 
His  predecessors  had  ordered  all  "  superstition  "  to  cease  in 
the  temples,  and  even  threatened  persons  privately  sacrificing 
with  death — for  so  we  must  understand  the  references  to 
earlier  legislation  in  the  Theodosian  code.  The  active  per- 
secution, however,  had  not  gone  beyond  the  confiscation  of 
temple  property  and  the  stern  punishment  of  magic.  Now 
Julian  not  only  granted  freedom  for  the  worship  of  the  old 
gods  again  ;  he  ordered  the  confiscated  property  to  be  restored 
without  compensation,  a  hardship  on  the  holders  of  it  for 
the  time  being  in  sharp  contrast  with  Constantine's  arrange- 

^  Amm.  Marc.  xx.  iv.  14. 


THE  LATER  AKTAN  PERIOD  63 

ment  for  the  use  of  the  funds  of  the  State  in  buying  back 
Church  property  for  the  Christians.  Julian's  whole  influence 
leaned  heavily  on  the  pagan  side.  All  the  court  favour 
was  for  men  of  the  old  religion ;  and  under  an  absolute 
despotism  this  must  have  meant  much,  quite  apart  from 
any  change  of  legislation.  Knowing  which  way  the  wind 
blew,  the  enemies  of  the  Christians  ventured  on  many  an 
act  of  violence  in  various  localities,  and  always  with  im- 
punity, and  these  local  outbreaks  led  to  cases  of  martyrdom, 
reminding  people  of  the  dark  days  of  the  Diocletian  perse- 
cution. Thus,  for  insulting  the  sacrifices,  Basil  of  Ancyra 
was  flayed  alive,  slowly,  seven  strips  of  skin  being  peeled 
off  at  a  time.  Modern  psychology  will  lend  some  credit  to 
the  story  of  a  young  man  named  Theodore  who  was  tortured 
at  Antioch  by  the  reluctant  prefect  under  orders  from 
Julian  to  punish  those  people  who  had  been  most  prominent 
in  the  procession  that  had  transported  the  coffin  of  the 
martyr  Baby  las  from  Daphne,  where  its  sacred  contents 
were  supposed  to  have  silenced  the  oracle  when  Julian  was 
consulting  it,  much  to  the  emperor's  annoyance.  Rufinus  got 
the  story  direct  from  the  lips  of  its  hero,^  who  in  reply  to 
a  question  whether  in  the  process  of  scourging  and  racking 
he  had  not  suffered  the  most  intense  pain,  said  that  he  felt 
the  pain  but  a  very  little  while,  for  a  young  man  stood  by 
him  wiping  off  the  sweat  and  so  strengthening  him  that 
his  time  of  trial  was  a  season  of  rapture. 

Later  in  his  reign,  Julian,  annoyed  at  the  failure  of  his 
attempts  to  galvanise  the  corpse  of  the  old  paganism  into 
life  again,  began  a  subtle  attack  on  the  Christians  by  for- 
bidding them  to  teach  the  classics  in  the  schools,  on  the 
theory  that  the  bible  of  paganism  should  only  be  taught 
by  those  who  believed  in  it.  So  he  said  of  them,  "  If  they 
feel  they  have  gone  astray  concerning  the  gods,  let  them 
go  to  the  churches  of  the  Galileeans  and  expound  Matthew 
and  Luke."  To  meet  this  severe  blow  at  the  culture  of  the 
Church,  the  two  Apollinarises — father  and  son — set  them- 

^  Rufinus,  Hist.  Eccl.  i.  36,  who  is  appealed  to  by  Socrates  as  the 
authority  for  the  story.     See  Socrates,  iii.  19. 


64  THE   GREKK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

selves  to  the  task  of    turning  tlic   Scriptures   into   Terse, 
adoptint^'  the  idioms  of  classic  Greek  in   the  work. 

Julian  might  have  proceeded  to  actual  violence 
had  lie  not  heen  arrested  in  mid  career.  His  early 
death  when  fighting  the  Persians  came  as  a  great 
deliverance  to  the  alarmed  Church.  It  was  the  end  of  a 
strange  tragedy.  With  all  his  serious  aims,  the  emperor 
had  been  made  to  see  that  his  life  was  a  failure.  His 
own  religion  was  a  curious  compound  of  old  -  fashioned 
paganism  and  Neo-Platonic  ideas.  He  restored  the  vrorship 
of  the  gods  at  many  a  neglected  shrine,  and  renewed  the 
sacrifices  on  long  deserted  altars ;  but  the  misery  of  it  all 
was  that  the  people  would  not  respond.  He  paid  Chris- 
tianity the  sincere  homage  of  imitation,  organising  a  regular 
hierarchy  with  choirs  and  liturgical  services  and  pulpits 
for  the  preaching  of  pagan  sermons.  He  founded  pagan 
monasteries  and  hospitals.  It  was  all  in  vain.  Nobody 
cared.  He  had  all  the  zeal  of  a  revivalist.  Yet  he  was 
laughed  at  by  the  people  of  his  own  religion.  It  has  been 
suggested  that  if  he  had  promoted  Eoman  instead  of  Greek 
religion  he  might  have  met  with  some  success. 

A  strange  figure ! — as  dirty  as  a  saint,  if  only  Julian 
had  been  a  Christian,  his  grimy  hands,  his  tangled  beard — 
at  which  the  people  of  Antioch  laughed  outright,  his  coarse 
clothing  rarely  changed,^  would  have  earned  him  the  honour 
of  sanctity.  Undoubtedly  he  was  a  conscientious  religious 
devotee,  as  he  was  also  an  honest,  indefatigable  administrator. 
And  yet  directly  he  died  the  whole  fabric  of  renovated 
paganism  that  he  had  toiled  so  strenuously  but  single- 
handed  to  build  up  fell  to  the  ground  like  a  house  of  cards. 
It  may  be  said  that  he  failed  because  he  aimed  too  high. 
Perceiving  that  the  old  paganism  was  dying  of  its  own 
rottenness,  he  set  himself  to  be  its  reformer  as  well  as  its 
champion.  He  would  support  the  pagan  priests  and  supply 
tiie  altars  with  sacrifices ;  but  then  these  priests  of  his 
must  show  Christian  sanctity  in  their  conduct.  But  they 
had  no  wish  to  be  screwed  up  to  the  new  standard  of  virtue 

'  See  Anim.  Marc.  xxii.  xiv.  3. 


THE  LATER  ARIAN  PERIOD  65 

in  the  name  of  the  hoary  old  gods  who  hitherto  had  let  off 
their  worshippers  on  much  easier  terms.  The  dismal  failure 
of  this  last  attempt  at  the  restoration  of  paganism  with 
which  its  reformation  was  to  go  hand  in  hand  was  a  plain 
proof  that  the  whole  system  was  outworn.  With  all  his 
enthusiasm  Julian's  desperate  efforts  had  proved  to  be  no 
better  than  the  galvanising  of  a  corpse.  It  is  true  that 
paganism  was  not  actually  extinguished  for  years  to 
come ;  indeed  it  is  with  us  to-day,  for  it  is  inhereut  in 
human  nature.  The  Church  was  able  to  make  a  place 
for  it  by  developing  her  hagiology,  which  sheltered  the 
ancient  superstitions  of  the  dead  pantheon.  But  Julian's 
failure  demonstrated  once  for  all  that  the  old  cult  of 
the  gods,  open  and  recognised,  had  gone,  and  gone  for 
ever. 

The  simple  soldier  Jovian  whom  the  army  voted  into 
the  high  position  of  emperor  to  rescue  it  from  the 
Persians  was  an  orthodox  Christian,  who,  as  Theodoret 
states,^  hesitated  to  accept  the  honour  till  he  was  assured  of 
the  Christian  sympathies,  and  with  his  accession  to  power 
the  brief  gleam  of  sunshine  which  had  broken  out  so  un- 
expectedly on  the  fading  faith  of  the  old  regime  died  away 
never  to  revive.  Not  only  paganism,  but  its  sometime  ally 
Arianism,  also  suffered  by  the  accession  of  an  emperor  who 
belonged  to  the  Nicene  party.  Jovian  lost  no  time  in 
reversing  the  policy  of  his  predecessor,  giving  an  early  in- 
dication of  this  change  by  restoring  the  Labarum  which 
Julian  had  laid  aside.  He  issued  an  edict  granting  full 
religious  liberty  to  his  subjects.  This  was  a  revival  of 
Constantino's  large-minded  statesmanship ;  it  permitted 
Arianism  and  even  paganism — which  Constantius  had 
persecuted.  The  immunities  of  the  clergy  were  restored 
and  the  grants  of  public  moneys  for  widows  and  consecrated 
virgins  in  the  Church  renewed.  Jovian  issued  a  decree 
condemning  to  death  any  who  forced  these  virgins  into 
marriage  or  even  proposed  marriage  to  them.  Athauasius 
was  now  the  greatest  figure  in  the  Church.     Julian,  after 

1  Hist.  Ecd.  iv.  1. 

5 


66  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

permitting  him  to  return  to  Alexandria,  had  felt  his  power- 
ful influence  thwarting  his  plans  and  had  banished  him  as 
"the  great  foe  of  the  gods."  We  must  distinguish  this 
action  which  was  clearly  a  piece  of  pagan  persecution  of 
Christianity  from  the  many  Arian  attacks  directed  against 
Athanasius.  With  the  accession  of  Jovian  of  course  the 
great  bishop  was  free  to  come  back  to  his  post.  The 
emperor  addressed  him  a  letter  of  warm  admiration,  and 
obtained  from  him  a  reply  setting  forth  the  orthodox 
belief  as  opposed  to  Arianism.^ 

Unfortunately  this  state  of  things  lasted  but  a  very 
short    time.     Jovian    was    accidentally    killed    after    only 
reigning  eight  months,  being  suffocated  when  sleeping  in  a 
room  heated  with  a  charcoal  brazier.^     He  was  succeeded 
by  a  military  officer,  Valentinian  (a.d.  364),  who  was  botli 
orthodox    and    tolerant.       But    Valentinian    assigned    the 
eastern  provinces  of  his  empire  to  Valens  his  brother,  who 
proved  to  be  a  bitter  Arian,  influenced,  as  Theodoret  ^  says, 
by  his  wife.      In  spite  of  this  fact,  Valentinian  was  able  to 
induce  Valens  to  join  him  in  signing  an  edict  ordering  that 
"  those  who  labour  in  the  field  of  Christ  are  not  to  be  perse- 
cuted nor  oppressed,  and  that  the  stewards  of  the  Great 
Kuler  are  not  to  be  driven  away."  *     After  this  it  may  strike 
*  us  as  surpising  that  Valens  should  have  been  allowed  to 
persecute  the  Nicene  party,  and  Gibbon  endeavours  to  dis- 
credit the  idea  that  he  did  so  before  the  death  of  Valentinian, 
which  occurred  in  the  year  A.D.  375.^     But  he  ventures  on 
this  doubt  in  the  teeth  of  the  unanimous  testimony  of  the 
Church  historians,  who  agree  in  describing  acts  of  cruelty, 
including  one  almost  incredibly  barbarous  crime,  as  com- 
mitted during  the  lifetime  of  the  elder  brother.      The  story 
of  this  outrageous  deed  is  that  eighty  men — Theodoret  says 
"  presbyters  " — who  had  come  as  a  deputation  to  Constanti- 
nople were  sent  out  to  sea  in  an  unballasted  ship  and  there 
burnt  to   death   by   men   who   had  accompanied  them   in 

1  Theodoret,  iv.  3.  "^  Amm.  Marc.  xxv.  x.  12,  13. 

»  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  12.  "  Op.  cit.  iv.  8. 

*  Decline  and  Fall,  chap.  xxv. 


THE    LATER    ARIAN    PERIOD  67 

another  vessel  with  orders  to  execute  them  in  tliis  horrible 
way  (A.D.  370).i 

Although  we  may  hesitate  to  believe  so  amazing  a  story 
— and  it  is  not  easy  to  accept  it  even  on  the  positive 
testimony  of  our  authorities — there  can  be  no  question  as  to 
the  outrages  which  were  witnessed  at  Alexandria  after  the 
death  of  Valentinian  had  left  the  Arians  in  Valens'  half  of 
the  empire  free  from  all  restraint.  The  pagans  were  glad 
of  an  opportunity  for  uniting  forces  with  any  opponents  of 
the  orthodox  Church,  and  of  course  the  men  of  the  baser 
sort  would  be  only  too  ready  to  seize  their  chai;ice  of  a 
share  in  any  commotion  that  was  going  on.  Common 
decency  compels  us  to  ascribe  to  these  lower  elements  of 
the  population,  the  dregs  of  a  dissolute  city,  doings  with 
which  no  Christian  however  "  heretical "  he  might  be  would 
disgrace  himself.  Thus  the  mob  invaded  the  church  of 
St.  Thomas ;  a  young  man  in  woman's  clothing  danced  on 
the  altar ;  another  young  man  sat  naked  in  the  bishop's 
chair,  from  which  he  openly  preached  immorality  to  a  crowd 
that  roared  with  laughter  at  what  they  took  to  be  a  fine 
joke ;  virgins  of  the  Church  were  stripped,  scourged,  violated. 
In  fact,  the  recent  Bulgarian  and  Armenian  horrors  were 
anticipated  by  the  Alexandrian  atrocities  committed  in  the 
name  of  Christian  theology.  During  these  troubles  an 
attempt  was  made  to  seize  Athanasius,  but  once  again  the 
old  man  escaped  as  though  by  miracle,  and  this  time  he 
hid  himself  in  his  father's  tomb.  The  best  testimony  to 
the  weight  of  the  great  bishop's  influence  may  be  seen  in  the 
fact  that  even  after  all  this  Valens  was  induced  to  let 
Athanasius  return  to  his  beloved  flock.  That  was  the  end 
of  his  wanderings.     Although  the  Arian  persecution  still 

1  Socrates,  iv.  16;  Sozomen,  vi.'14;  Theodoret,  iv.  24.  None  of  these 
writers  charge  Valens  with  the  diabolical  device  by  which  the  obnoxious 
deputation  was  got  out  of  the  way — evidently  from  fear  of  interference  from 
the  people  of  Constantinople  if  the  victims  were  not  put  beyond  the  reach  of 
rescue.  Theodoret  ascribes  the  crime  to  "the  Arians  of  Constantinople." 
But  he  is  an  untrustworthy  writer.  Both  Socrates  and  Sozomen  state  that 
the  emperor  secretly  ordered  the  prefect  to  put  the  men  to  death,  and  that 
it  was  this  prefect  who  carried  out  his  master's  command  in  the  manner 
described  on  his  own  account. 


68  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN   CHURCHES 

raged  in  other  places,  henceforth  the  venerated  patriarch 
of  Alexandria  was  able  to  hold  his  own  without  further 
molestation  till  his  death  in  the  year  A.D,  373.  No  hero 
of  romance  ever  passed  through  more  strange  adventures 
and  hairbreadth  escapes.  Singled  out  by  four  emperors — 
Constantine,  Constantius,  Julian,  and  Valens — as  a  pecu- 
liarly dangerous  person,  hated  with  murderous  passion  by 
the  Arian  faction,  no  less  than  five  times  driven  into  exile, 
Athanasius  always  maintained  the  affection  of  his  flock, 
and  throughout  the  long  oppression  was  known  to  all  the 
world  as  the  sure  champion  of  the  Nicene  faith.  He  may 
not  have  been  so  profound  a  theologian  as  his  contemporary 
Hilary  in  the  West,  nor  as  the  Cappadocians  of  the  succeed- 
ing generation  in  the  East ;  but  undoubtedly  he  was  a  very 
great  man  indeed,  of  proved  integrity,  loyal  faith,  unflinch- 
ing courage,  wise  statesmanship,  large-hearted  charity ;  the 
supreme  hero  of  his  period,  and  one  of  the  best,  truest, 
strongest  Christians  the  world  has  ever  seen. 

Athanasius  had  lived  to  see  remarkable  changes  in  the 
Arian  contention  and  some  modification  of  the  orthodox 
position,  although  his  own  position  remained  firm  on  the 
ground  of  the  Nicene  confession  of  his  youth.  Arianism 
split  up  into  several  parties  each  with  its  own  watchword. 
The  most  important  novelty  was  that  of  the  Semi-Arians, 
who  endeavoured  to  formulate  definitely  the  mediating 
ideas  which  had  appeared  at  the  time  of  the  council  of 
Nicsea  in  the  explanations  of  the  creed  which  Eusebius  of 
Caesarea  had  given  his  Church.  It  is  not  fair  to  call  the 
great  historian  a  Semi- Arian.  No  party  which  could  bear 
that  name  was  known  in  his  day :  he  accepted  the  creed, 
which  at  a  later  time  the  Semi-Arians  wished  to  alter, 
although  he  explained  its  test  word  homoousious  in  his 
own  way,  and  he  lived  and  died  in  communion  with  the 
orthodox  Church.  The  watchword  of  the  Semi-Arians  was 
Homoiousios — "  like  in  essence."  Gibbon's  sarcasm  on  the 
division  of  the  Church  on  a  diphthong  is  as  shallow  as  it  is 
bitter.  The  faintest  difference  in  spelling  may  involve  a 
world-wide  difierence  of  meaning.     There  can  be  no  ques- 


THE   LATER    ARIAN    PERIOD  69 

tion  that  with  Athanasius  homoousious  meant  identity  of 
essence  or  substance,  so  that  He  who  came  "  from  the 
essence  "  ^  of  the  Father  not  only  resembles  the  Father  but 
is  inseparable  from  the  essential  being  of  the  Father.  Thus 
he  says,  "  We  must  not  imagine  three  divided  substances  in 
God,  as  among  men,  lest  we  like  the  heathen  invent  a  multi- 
plicity of  gods,  but  as  the  stream  is  bom  of  the  fountain  and 
not  separate  from  it  although  there  are  two  forms  and  names," 
and  asserts  the  Son's  "identity  with  His  own  Father." ^ 

A  conviction  thus  deliberately  stated  is  not  to  be  set 
aside  by  appealing  to  the  unquestionable  fact  that  there 
are  instances  in  which  Athanasius  uses  the  word  homoousios 
of  separate  existences  in  the  sense  of  identity  in  nature.^ 
It  has  been  asserted  that  he  gave  up  insisting  on  his  earlier 
rigorous  use  of  the  word  and  would  allow  any  one  as  orthodox 
who  would  adopt  it  even  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  em- 
ployed of  man  and  man.  But  even  if  that  be  admitted — 
and  Athanasius  had  no  sympathy  with  verbal  pedantry  and 
was  really  anxious  for  the  cause  of  charity  and  peace — he 
must  not  be  supposed  to  have  agreed  to  the  Semi-Arian 
position,  since  he  no  more  accepted  the  Semi-Arians  them- 
selves than  the  full-fledged  Arians. 

Subsequently  two  other  parties  emerged.  First,  the 
extreme  Arians  stiffened  their  position  and  sharpened  their 
antitheses  against  the  mediating  Semi-Arians.  Thus  they 
changed  their  tactics  entirely.  In  the  earlier  period 
Athanasius  had  accused  them  of  shiftiness  and  a  vagueness 
of  language  deliberately  chosen  in  order  to  throw  dust  into 
their  opponents'  eyes.  This  was  their  policy  at  the  council 
of  Nicsea  when  they  saw  themselves  in  a  hopeless  minority, 
and  the  insincerity  of  it  was  one  of  the  heaviest  accusations 
brought  against  them  by  Athanasius  in  his  Orations.*  But 
during  the  Arian  ascendancy  under  Valens  the  situation 
was  very  different,  and  now  the  extreme  Arians,  seeing  no 
further  need  of  compromise,  went  so  far  as  to  declare  that 

'  4k  TTJs  ovffias.  -  Nicene  Bef.  9  ;  cf.  Orat.  i.  20,  22. 

'  e.g.  de  Stnt,  Dionys.  10  ;  de  Synodis,  51. 
*  e.g.  Orat.  i.  8,  31. 


70  'J'JIE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

the  Son  was  "  unlike  "  the  Father,  and  thus  came  to  he  desig- 
nated "Anomoean."!  They  were  also  called  "Aiitian,"  after 
Aetius  a  deacon  at  Antioch,  said  to  have  heen  very  disputa- 
tious in  pushing  tlie  dry  Aristotelian  logic  that  characterised 
Arianism  generally  to  its  ultimate  issues,  and  therefore  main- 
taining that  since  the  Son  was  a  creature  He  must  be  unlike 
the  Father,  not  only  in  essence,  but  also  in  will.  Another 
name  given  to  these  ultra- Arian  Arians  was  "Eunomian,"  after 
Eunomius  the  bishop  of  Cyzicum,  who  went  even  farther, 
discarding  all  mystery  in  religion  and  holding  that  man  can 
know  as  much  of  God's  nature  as  God  Himself  can  know. 

Such  extravagance  led  to  a  revolt  of  sober  minds.  The 
court  party  took  a  more  politic  line.  Sometimes  named 
"  Acacians "  after  Acacius  the  successor  of  Eusebius  of 
Caesarea,  they  maintained  a  vague  and  moderate  view  nearer 
to  that  of  the  great  historian,  coming  between  the  Semi- 
Arians  and  the  Anomoeans,  though  in  a  very  different 
temper.  They  were  content  to  say  that  the  Son  was  like 
the  Father, — and  therefore  were  called  "  Homoean,"  ^ — and 
to  dispense  with  further  definitions,  affecting  to  fall  back  on 
Scripture  language  and  condemning  the  Semi-Arians  equally 
with  the  Nicene  bishops  for  employing  an  unscriptural 
term.  But  it  was  now  too  late  for  the  plea  of  conservatism 
with  which  Arius  had  tried  to  win  over  the  simpler  country 
pastors  at  Nicsea.  These  Homoeans  were  regarded  as 
unscrupulous,  crafty  politicians,  who  really  agreed  with 
the  extreme  Arians,  but  disavowed '  them  whenever  it  suited 
their  convenience.  The  existence  of  such  a  party  in 
influence  at  court  even  under  Valens  is  a  plain  proof  that 
the  Nicene  belief  had  strong  hold  of  the  people  as  a  whole ; 
and  the  breaking  up  of  Arianism  into  mutually  antagonistic 
factions  was  a  sure  sign  of  its  approaching  downfall,  as  it 
was  also  an  evidence  that  the  shot  and  shell  poured  in  by 
the  great  orthodox  theologians  was  doing  deadly  work  against 
the  Arian  positions.  These  three  parties — the  Homoiousian, 
the  Anomoean,  and  Homoean — by  their  mutual  antagonisms 
were  preparing  for  the  triumph  of  the  Homoousian. 

^  dy6fJ.oios.  *  6/xolot. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  CAPPADOCIAN  THEOLOGIANS 

(o)  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers,  Basil,  Gregory  Nazianzen, 
Gregory  of  Nyssa ;  Socrates,  Sozomen,  Theodoret,  Philo- 
storgius, 

(6)  Besides  works  on  the  history  mentioned  in  earlier  chapters, 
Bright,  Age  of  the  Fathers,  vol.  i.,  1903  ;  R.  Travers  Smith, 
St.  Basil  the  Great;  XJlmann,  Greijorius  von  Nazianz  de  Theologe, 
first  part  of  first  edit,  trans,  by  Cox  ;  Newman,  Church  oj 
the  Fathers,  pp.  116-145;  Ceilier,  Auteurs  Eccles.,  torn.  vii.  ; 
Tillemont,  Memories,  ix.  ;  Dorner,  The  Person  of  Christ, 
Div.  L,  vol.  ii. ;  Ottley,  The  Incarnation,  vol.  ii.,  part  v., 
1896  ;  Lietzmann,  Apollinaris  von  Laodicea,  1904. 

The  second  half  of  the  fourth  century  is  the  most  brilHant 
period  in  the  theological  literature  of  the  Greek  Church. 
This  fact  creates  a  sore  temptation  to  spend  some  time  in 
the  company  of  its  great  men  rather  than  to  hasten  on  to 
duller  scenes  and  poorer  minds.  But  the  immense  field  to 
be  covered  by  the  present  volume  compels  that  act  of  self- 
denial,  and  the  more  so  since  we  are  still  dealing  with  the  age 
of  a  united  Catholic  Church.  Nevertheless,  not  only  on  their 
own  account,  but  also  for  the  sake  of  coming  to  a  right 
understanding  of  the  life  and  thought  of  later  centuries  in 
the  East,  we  must  have  some  conception  of  the  teachings 
of  the  men  who  did  most  to  shape  the  orthodoxy  which  it 
became  the  business  of  subsequent  generations  to  defend. 

After  Athanasius,  who  stands  apart,  the  one  magnificent 
hero  of  the  first  half  of  the  fourth  century,  the  three 
greatest  theologians  of  the  orthodox  Eastern  Church  appear 
in  the  second  half  of  that  remarkable  century,  all  of  them 
natives  of  the  proviace  of  Cappadocia.     These  are  Basil, 

71 


72  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN  CHURCHES 

Gregory  Nazianzen,  and  Basil's  brother,  Gregory  of  Nyssa. 
The  first  two  were  highly  educated  in  the  university  culture 
of  their  day  ;  and,  although  Gregory  of  Nyssa  was  privately 
trained  by  Basil,  he  was  even  more  well-read  in  classical 
literature.  In  these  leaders  of  the  Church,  therefore,  we 
see  men  endowed  with  a  first-class  liberal  education  bring- 
ing to  bear  on  the  problems  of  theology  knowledge  of  the 
best  things  that  have  been  said  and  done  during  past  ages 
in  the  largo  outer  world.  In  this  respect  we  may  compare 
them  with  the  Alexandrians,  Clement  and  Origen,  a  century 
and  a  half  before,  or  with  such  men  of  the  "  New  Learn- 
ing "  among  the  Eeformers  as  Erasmus  and  Melanchthon. 
Of  these  three  Basil  was  the  most  prominent  in  his  own 
day,  since  he  was  a  man  of  affairs  as  well  as  a  scholar  and 
writer,  energetic,  courageous,  masterful.  He  was  born  at 
Caesarea,  the  capital  of  Cappadocia,  in  the  year  329. 
Having  distinguished  himself  at  school  in  his  native  town, 
he  was  sent  by  his  father  to  study  at  Constantinople  and 
perhaps  at  Antioch  under  Libanius — the  famous  lecturer  so 
much  admired  by  Julian.^  After  this  he  went  to  the 
university  of  Athens,  then  the  intellectual  centre  of  the 
civilised  world,  and  there  began  his  life-long  friendship 
with  Gregory  Nazianzen,  the  two  spending  some  years 
together  in  the  delightful  atmosphere  of  rich  scholar- 
ship and  refined  thinking  which  was  so  congenial  to  both 
of  them.  Here  too  Basil  met  the  future  Emperor  Julian  and 
became  intimate  with  that  eager  student  on  their  common 
ground  of  intellectual  interests.  Flushed  with  the  scholar's 
fame  he  had  returned  to  Csesarea,  apparently  as  yet  having 
no  perception  of  his  great  mission,  when  his  sister  Macrina 
turned  his  thoughts  to  the  higher  aims,  and  he  was  baptised. 
Then  he  determined  to  devote  himself  to  the  ascetic  life, 
and  appointed  a  baiHff  for  his  estate — for  he  was  a  wealthy 
landowner  and  always  behaved  Hke  an  aristocrat.      Basil 

'  Socrates,  iv.  26  ;  Sozonien,  vi.  17.  But  a  doubt  has  been  raised  on  this 
point,  and  it  has  been  suggested  that  his  namesake,  a  friend  of  Chrysostoni, 
may  be  confused  by  the  historians  with  Basil  of  C^sarea.  See  Blomfield 
Jackson,  Nieene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers,  vol.  xiii.  p.  xv. 


THE    CAPPADOCIAN   THEOLOGIANS  73 

spent  five  years  in  the  desert  of  Pontus,  where  he  founded 
monastic  establishments.  He  slept  in  a  hair  shirt,  he  had 
but  one  meal  a  day,  and  he  lived  only  on  a  vegetable  diet. 
The  sun  was  his  only  fire.  His  constitution  was  not 
robust ;  and  on  one  occasion,  when  the  governor  of  Pontus 
threatened  to  tear  out  his  liver,  Basil  replied,  "Thanks 
for  your  intention ;  where  it  is  at  present  it  has  been 
no  slight  annoyance." 

Basil's  monasteries  were  schools  of  Nicene  orthodoxy, 
at  which  the  clergy  who  had  been  banished  from  their 
churches  took  refuge  and  trained  up  a  generation  of  men 
faithful  to  the  oppressed  faith,  and  Basil  himself  was 
indefatigable  in  labouring  for  its  restoration.  It  seemed  as 
though  the  mantle  of  Athanasius  had  fallen  on  his  shoulders. 
Throughout  the  East  he  was  recognised  as  the  champion  of 
the  Nicene  cause.  At  length  some  Church  troubles  led  his 
friend  Gregory  to  urge  his  recall,  and  on  the  death  of  the 
bishop  he  was  elected  to  the  bishopric  of  C?esarea  (a.d.  370). 

Basil's  commanding  character  was  now  felt  most  power- 
fully all  over  Syria  and  Asia  Minor.  When  the  prefect 
Modestus  proposed  to  the  bishops  of  his  district  the 
alternatives  of  Arianism  or  deprivation  in  accordance  with 
the  orders  of  the  emperor  Valens,  he  came  to  Basil  and 
urged  him  to  yield  to  the  will  of  his  "  Sovereign."  "  I  have 
a  sovereign,"  he  answered,  "whose  will  is  otherwise,  nor 
can  I  bring  myself  to  worship  any  creature "  (alluding  to 
the  Arian  Christ).  The  prefect  threatened  confiscation, 
exile,  torture.  "Think  of  some  other  threat,"  was 
the  fearless  man's  reply ;  "  these  have  no  influence  on  me." 
Modestus  was  constrained  to  respect  the  great  bishop's 
firmness,  and  he  appealed  to  the  emperor,  who  soon  after 
visited  Csesarea,  where,  awed  by  the  presence  of  Basil — 
the  old  writers  add,  by  the  miracles  he  wrought — he  was 
generous  enough  to  dismiss  the  bishop  and  his  friends  with- 
out punishment.  Basil  did  not  live  to  see  the  restoration 
of  the  Nicene  faith.      He  died  in  the  year  379. 

The  principal  extant  works  of  Basil  consist  of  homilies 
entitled  Hexcemeron,  on  the  six  days  of  creation ;  five  books 


74  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Against  Eunomius,  the  extreme  Arian,  the  last  two  of  which 
are  sometimes  regarded  as  by  another  hand ;  an  important 
work  upon  the  Holy  Spirit;  Letters,  which  give  a  vivid 
picture  of  the  writer's  life  and  its  surroundings;  various 
ascetic  works  and  sermons.  The  "Liturgy  of  St.  Basil" 
and  the  "  Liturgy  of  St.  Chrysostom  "  subsequently  used  in 
the  East  were  in  all  probability  both  based  on  an  older 
liturgy  that  Basil  used  and  gave  to  his  clergy. 

In  defending  the  Nicene  position  Basil  developed  a 
new  terminology  which  we  may  take  as  indicating  some 
change  of  view.  With  Athanasius  there  is  in  God  one  oiisia  ^ 
(essence)  or  hypostasis  ^  (substance),  the  two  words  being 
synonymous.  But,  according  to  Basil,  while  there  is  one 
ousia,  there  are  three  hypostases ;  and  in  this  change  of 
terminology  the  two  Gregories  agree,  so  that  under  the 
influence  of  the  Cappadocian  theologians  it  passes  over  into 
the  lansuase  of  the  Greek  Church.  Meanwhile  in  the  Latin 
Church  there  was  no  change  of  usage.  Here  it  was  taught 
all  along  that  in  the  Trinity  there  was  one  substantia 
existing  in  three  personce.^  But  the  Latin  Church  used 
the  word  substantia  as  equivalent  to  both  the  Greek  words 
ousia  and  hypostasis.  Thus  the  East  saw  three  hypostases 
in  the  Trinity,  but  the  West  only  one.  The  difference 
however  was  not  so  great  as  it  appeared  to  be  on  the 
surface.  The  Greeks  had  no  word  equivalent  to  the  Latin 
persona  which  they  could  use  with  safety,  because  the  nearest 
corresponding  term,  prosojwn,'^  was  already  appropriated  in 
a  Sabellian  sense  for  a  mere  phase  or  aspect  of  God  without 
any  real  distinction  of  person.  Since  the  Arians  were  con- 
stantly charging  the  Nicene  party  with  Sabellianism,  it 
would  never  have  done  to  adopt  so  suspicious  a  word. 
Accordingly  a  new  term  had  to  be  found  for  what  the 
West  regarded  as  the  personce,  literally  the  "  characters  " 
(as   the   word   is   used   in   a    drama)  of  the   Trinity,  and 

'  oiiffla.  *  vir6(jTa<Tii. 

'  It  has  been  suggested  that  the  great  test  word  was  of  Latin  origin — 
bfiooixnov  being  a  translation  of  unius  substantia: — an  improbable  hypothesis. 
*  xpoffwirov. 


THE    CAPPADUCIAN    THEOLOGIANS  i  o 

hypostasis  was  taken  over  for  this  purpose.  Nevertheless 
the  change  was  more  than  verbal.  Basil  treated  the  differ- 
ence between  ousia  and  liyposfMsis  as  equivalent  to  that 
between  connnon  and  proper  nouns,  as  between  "  man " 
and  "  Peter,  Paul,  John,  or  James."  ^  When  it  was 
objected  that  the  term  homoousios  implied  a  kind  of 
division  and  distribution  of  a  previously  existing  sub- 
stance, Basil  replied,  "  The  idea  might  have  some  applica- 
tion to  brass  and  coins  made  of  it ;  but  in  the  case  of 
the  Father  and  of  the  Son  the  substance  of  one  is  not 
older  than  that  of  the  other,  neither  can  it  be  conceived 
as  superimposed  on  both."  ^  We  must  remember  that  the 
orthodox  Greek  theologians  were  Platonic  in  their  spirit 
and  thought,  so  that  to  them  the  idea  corresponding  to  a 
general  term  was  a  high  reality.  Nevertheless,  language 
such  as  this  reveals  a  growing  tendency  to  emphasise  the 
numerical  distinction  between  the  persons  in  the  Trinity. 
Surely  Harnack  goes  too  far  when  he  regards  this  as 
virtually  the  adoption  of  the  Semi-Arian  position,^  for  the 
firm  adhesion  to  the  unity  of  the  substance  (the  ousia) 
seems  to  preclude  that  amazing  conclusion.  But  un- 
doubtedly some  approach  to  it  was  made,  perhaps  in 
part  owing  to  the  fact  that  most  of  the  Semi-Arians  were 
coming  over  to  the  orthodox  Church.  The  final  result  was 
that  without  any  formal  divergence  of  doctrine,  while  in 
the  West  the  emphasis  was  always  laid  on  the  unity  of 
the  Godhead,  in  the  East  it  came  to  be  put  more  on  the 
division  of  the  persons. 

Gregory  Nazianzen  was  in  some  respects  the  opposite, 
or  the  complement,  to  his  friend  Basil  in  nature  and  disposi- 
tion. An  indefatigable  student,  retiring  and  unambitious, 
he  would  never  have  come  out  into  a  position  of  responsi- 
bility if  this  course  had  not  been  forced  upon  him,  or  at 
all  events  reluctantly  accepted  by  him  under  a  strong  sense 
of  duty.  He  was  born  in  the  year  325,  or  a  little  later, 
at   Nazianzus  in   Cappadocia,  where  his  father,  the  elder 

1  Letter  38.  ^  Letter  52. 

•  History  of  Dogma,  Eng.  Trans.,  vol.  iv.  p.  82. 


76  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Gregory  was  bishop,  honourably  illustrating  as  late  as  the 
fourth  century  the  right  of  bishops  to  live  in  the  married 
state.  He  appears  to  have  first  met  Basil  at  Csesarea,  where 
he  had  been  sent  to  school.  The  schoolboy  attachment 
ripened  into  a  life-long  friendship.  Afterwards  studying 
at  Cffisarea  in  Palestine,  and  then  at  Alexandria,  he  came 
on  at  length  to  the  great  university  of  Athens,  where  he 
found  Basil  already  winning  a  brilliant  reputation  for 
scholai'ship.  In  his  funeral  oration  over  his  friend  he 
gives  a  vivid  account  of  university  life  at  the  classic 
centre  of  culture  during  the  fourth  century.  Theatres, 
wine  parties,  frivolous  discussions  dissipated  the  time  and 
energies  of  fashionable  students.  But  the  two  Cappa- 
docians  had  come  to  work,  and  sternly  avoiding  all  these 
distractions,  they  gave  themselves  to  severe  study.  Gregory 
stayed  on  longer  than  his  friend,  apparently  for  twelve  years 
altogether,  from  the  age  of  eighteen  till  he  was  past  thirty. 
At  last,  fascinated  by  the  attractions  of  the  devotional  life, 
he  joined  Basil  for  a  short  time  in  his  Pontic  retreat. 

In  the  year  360  Gregory  returned  home,  probably  to 
assist  his  father.  Much  against  his  will,  but  at  the  urgent 
wish  of  the  people  of  Nazianzus,  his  father  ordained  him 
presbyter.  It  was  "  good  form  "  to  appear  reluctant  to  take 
office  in  the  Church  ;  but  evidently  Gregory's  shrinking  from 
the  responsibility  was  genuine ;  he  even  described  his  ordina- 
tion as  an  act  of  tyranny,  and  immediately  after  fled  to  his 
old  retreat  with  Basil.  His  Defemce  of  his  Flight  to  Pontus 
— his  first  sermon  after  his  return — sets  "forth  the  loftiest 
ideal  of  the  Christian  ministry  with  a  richness  of  thought 
and  a  passionate  earnestness  of  feeling  that  make  this  book 
live  to-day  as  truly  as  Baxter's  Reformed  Pastor — a  work  on 
similar  lines.  But  he  could  not  long  resist  the  call  of  duty. 
Subsequently  Basil  forced  him  to  the  episcopate  of  a  little 
posting-station  named  Sasima,  a  noisy,  dusty  village  of  one 
narrow  street  with  no  grass  or  trees  in  its  neighbourhood. 
The  masterful  Basil  did  this  for  the  benefit  of  his  friend's 
soul,  as  a  discipline  in  submission  and  humility — an  action 
the  merit  of  which  was  not  highly  appreciated  by  its  victim. 


THE    CAPPADOCIAN   THEOLOGIANS  77 

After  an  obscure  time  at  Seleucia  in  Isauria  he  was  dragged 
out  into  the  glare  of  day  by  being  appointed  to  the  charge 
of  the  one  orthodox  Church  at  Constantinople,  when  the 
Arian  tyranny  was  at  its  height.  There  he  preached  his 
famous  Five  Theological  Orations,  which  placed  him  in  the 
foremost  rank  of  Christian  preachers ;  they  are  not  un- 
worthy of  comparison  with  the  utterances  of  the  classic 
Greek  orators.  His  sermons  are  his  greatest  works ;  after 
them  his  letters  and  his  poems  claim  our  interest. 

On  the  accession  of  Theodosius,  Gregory  was  rewarded 
for  his  fidelity  in  holding  the  fort  during  the  Arian  period  by 
being  made  patriarch  of  Constantinople.  In  virtue  of  this 
fact  he  presided  at  some  of  the  sessions  of  the  council  that 
assembled  in  that  city  in  the  year  381,  till,  feeling  unequal 
to  the  distasteful  task  of  maintaining  order  amid  the  wrang- 
ling of  the  bishops,  he  retired  to  his  home  at  Nazianzus, 
although  according  to  Socrates  ^  he  had  "  surpassed  all  his 
contemporaries  in  eloquence  and  piety." 

Gregory  defended  the  Nicene  position,  as  held  by  himself 
and  Basil,  by  elaborating  the  mysterious  connection  of  unity 
and  threefoldness  in  the  Trinity.  He  explained  that  the 
unity  of  the  "  monarchy  "  ^  consisted  in  "  common  dignity  ^ 
of  the  essence,"  "  harmony  of  sentiment,"  *  "  identity  of 
motion,"  ^  and  "  inclination  "  ®  of  the  Son  and  the  Spirit 
towards  the  Father.  How  striking,  even  startling,  are 
these  various  expressions,  one  and  all  indicating  the  dis- 
tinctions of  individuality  in  the  Trinity  even  when  toiling 
to  find  means  to  express  the  idea  of  the  unity — so  char- 
acteristic of  the  later  development  of  the  Nicene  theology, 
so  different  from  the  attitude  of  the  Western  Church ! 
Only  the  underlying  Platonism  can  save  such  language 
from  a  charge  of  tritheism.  But  the  unity  is  really  found 
in  the  idea  of  derivation.  The  Son  and  Spirit  are  twin 
rays  from  one  light  and  that  by  an  eternally  continuous 
process. 

The    third    of    the    great    Cappadocians    was    Basil's 

*  Hist.  Eccl.  V.  7.  *  fiovapxia-  *  dfjiorifila. 

*  yi>u}fir)S  av/Mirvoia.  '  Tavrrjs  Kivi^ffeus,  '  ffCvvevais. 


78  THE  gref:k  and  eastern  churches 

younger  brother  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  who  was  born  about 
A.D.  335  or  336.  Owing  to  the  delicacy  of  his  health  he 
enjoyed  none  of  the  university  advantages  that  fell  to  the 
lot  of  Basil  and  Gregory  Nazianzen.  He  was  privately 
educated  by  his  brother  Basil,  and  he  became  a  great 
reader  on  his  own  account.  After  this  it  is  significant 
that  he  proved  to  be  a  much  more  original  thinker  tlian 
either  of  the  two  highly-tutored  senior  members  of  the 
famous  trio.  Basil  appointed  liim  bishop  of  the  little 
town  of  Nyssa,  (now  Nirse)  in  the  west  of  Cappadocia. 
During  the  Arian  persecution  under  Valens  he  was  driven 
from  his  church  on  a  charge  of  irregularity  of  appointment 
by  a  too  subservient  synod  held  at  Nyssa,  and  then  banished 
by  the  emperor,  to  be  restored  after  the  death  of  Valens 
and  "  the  crash  of  Hadrianople."  On  the  death  of  Basil 
he  became  one  of  the  two  leading  defenders  of  the  faith. 

Gregory  of  Nyssa  is  chiefly  interesting  to  us  on 
account  of  the  profound  arguments  and  daring  speculations 
with  which  he  justified  the  orthodox  view  against  the 
Arians.  These  are  elaborated  in  his  great  work  Against 
Eunomius,  as  well  as  in  some  of  his  shorter  writings. 
The  Nicene  fathers  had  simply  thundered  out  a  great 
affirmation  —  strong,  definite,  conclusive — still  only  an 
affirmation,  a  bare  assertion  voted  by  authority.  Even 
Athanasius  was  content  for  the  most  part  to  defend  it  by 
rebutting  false  conceptions  while  tearing  the  rival  theory 
to  shreds.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  goes  further.  He  digs  into 
the  roots  of  the  mighty  affirmation  ;  he  seeks  to  justify 
it  metaphysically ;  he  carries  orthodox  theology  into  the 
free  atmosphere  of  philosophy  and  there  attempts  to  argue 
for  its  truth  on  principles  of  abstract  reason — a  daring,  a 
perilous  effort,  but  still  one  that  some  minds  not  satisfied 
with  authoritative  dogma  might  welcome  with  a  sense  of 
liberty  and  enlargement.  In  particular,  Gregory  helped 
to  develop  a  new  line  of  thought  that  opened  up  fruitful 
sources  of  discussion  among  subsequent  writers.  Hitherto 
the  nature  of  Christ  had  been  almost  exclusively  con- 
sidered on  its  Divine  side.     The  one  question  had   been, 


THE   CAPPADOCIAN    THEOLOGIANS  79 

How  did  He  stand  related  to  God  ?  The  orthodox  were 
content  to  affirm  His  full  Divinity  and  also  to  assert  the 
fact  of  the  incarnation ;  but  they  made  no  attempt  to 
correlate  these  two  truths.  They  had  no  theory  as  to 
how  the  Divine  and  the  human  could  subsist  together, 
how  there  could  be  such  a  fact  as  an  incarnation  at  all. 
The  full  discussion  of  this  most  difficult  problem  belongs 
to  the  controversies  of  later  times — those  of  the  fifth  and 
sixth  centuries.  But  before  the  end  of  the  fourth  century 
there  had  emerged  a  burning  question  as  to  the  actual 
presence  of  complete  human  and  Divine  natures  in  the 
Person  of  Jesus  Christ.  Now  both  the  Gregories,  but 
Gregory  of  Nyssa  the  more  emphatically  of  the  two,  fol- 
lowed Origen  in  pronouncing  for  a  real  human  soul  in 
Christ.  According  to  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  this  was  trans- 
formed under  the  influence  of  the  Divine  Nature  after  the 
resurrection  and  ascension.  The  very  body  of  Christ  was 
then  sublimated  into  the  essence  of  the  Divine  Nature,  so 
that  it  has  laid  aside  the  attributes  of  gravity,  shape,  colour, 
and  all  limitation.  Thus  we  have  the  omnipresence  of  that 
glorified  body,  for  the  body  of  Christ  was  transmute  to  the 
flesh  of  God  by  the  indwelling  word.^  It  is  easy  to  see 
how  readily  such  a  theory  would  agree  with  the  doctrine 
of  transubstantiation,  a  doctrine  which  Gregory  did  more 
than  anybody  else  of  his  period  to  advance.^ 

On  the  other  hand,  Apollinaris  the  younger,  of  Hier- 
apolis,  took  the  opposite  line.  A  man  of  great  intellectual 
power,  he  made  an  original  attempt  to  shape  an  intelligible 
conception  of  the  incarnation.  But  by  aboUshing  its 
mystery  he  virtually  denied  the  fact.  His  motif  was 
opposition  to  Arianism.  Nevertheless,  he  shared  with 
Arius  a  view  which  the  Church  always  rejected  as  false 
and  fatal  to  the  central  idea  of  the  gospel,  the  coming 
of  the  Divine  into  the  human ;  for  he  too  denied  to  Christ 
a  complete  human  nature.  Like  Arius,  he  was  Aristotelian 
in   temper   of   mind  and  method  of  thought.     His  clear, 

^  Or  alio  catechetica  magna,  37. 

2  See  Hebert,  The  Lord's  Supper,  vol.  i.  pp.  202-209. 


80  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

crisp  logic  worked  out  definite  conclusions  without  regard 
to  side  issues.  Accepting  the  tripartite  division  of  man 
into  body  or  llesh,  soul,  and  mind  or  spirit,^  he  ascribed 
to  our  Lord  oidy  tlie  lirst  two,  and  taught  that  the  spirit 
or  higher  consciousness  of  Christ  was  purely  of  Divine 
Nature,  the  Son  of  God,  the  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity. 
He  thought  that  you  must  sacrifice  the  personality  on  one 
side  or  the  other.  Paul  of  Samosata  had  sacrificed  it  on 
the  Divine  side ;  with  him  Christ  was  only  a  man  com- 
pletely influenced  by  God,  the  ego,  the  centre  of  personality 
and  self-consciousness  being  human.  To  allow  of  two 
spirits  or  minds  is  to  admit  two  wills — which  the  Church 
did  actually  admit  and  even  affirm  on  peril  of  excommuni- 
cation at  a  later  time, — and  so  two  persons.  Then  the 
human  mind  ^  is  naturally  changeable,  owing  to  its  posses- 
sion of  free  will ;  but  to  say  that  Christ  was  changeable 
was  Arian,  the  Nicene  party  denying  this.  Further, 
Apollinaris  thought  that  the  usual  way  of  representing 
the  nature  of  Christ  was  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine 
of  redemption,  since  it  only  allowed  the  man  Jesus,  not 
the  Divine  Christ,  to  have  suffered  for  us. 

Apollinaris  was  vehemently  assailed  for  the  denial  of 
the  incarnation  these  ideas  were  supposed  to  involve.  But 
he  endeavoured  to  save  that  mystery  in  another  region. 
Since  man  was  made  in  the  image  of  God,  there  must  be 
something  in  God  which  is  like  man.  In  other  words,  there 
must  be  an  inherent  humanity  in  God.  Now  it  was  that 
man-like  element  in  God  which  entered  into  earthly  human 
nature  in  the  incarnation  of  Jesus.  Therefore  it  would 
exactly  correspond  to  a  perfect  human  spirit.  We  might 
compare  this  view  to  the  Semi- Arian,  by  applying  to  the 
human  nature  of  Christ  the  watchword  that  the  Semi- 
Arians  used  to  describe  His  Divine  Nature,  and  say  that, 
while  the  Athanasian  party  regarded  Christ  as  homoousios 
with  us  in  His  humanity,  Apollinaris  considered  Him  to 
be  only  hornoionsios  with  us.     It  wiU  be  found  that  most 

*  The  Greek  awfia,  fvxv,  I'ods ;  the  New  Testameut  ffdp^,  \f'vxn,  trffufia. 

*  yovs. 


THE    CAPPADOCIAN    THEOLOGIANS  81 

subsequent  approaches  to  an  explanation — over  and  above 
tlio  mere  orthodox  affirmation — of  the  incarnation  have 
moved  in  tlic  direction  here  indicated  by  Apollinaris ;  they 
have  denied  the  existence  of  the  enormous  gulf  commonly 
thought  to  separate  human  nature  from  God,  and  they 
have  asserted  a  natural  affinity  between  God  and  man,  a 
something  in  us  that  is  akin  to  God,  and  therefore  corre- 
latively  a  something  in  God  that  is  akin  to  us.  Some 
zealous  opponents  of  Arianism  were  driven  by  the  recoil 
of  their  attack  on  the  heresy  back  on  the  Sabellianism 
that  Arius  had  originally  set  out  to  resist.  Thus  they 
played  into  the  hands  of  their  opponents,  who  could  turn 
round  on  the  Nicene  party  saying,  "  There ;  that  is  just 
what  we  told  you — you  are  Sabellian."  Marcellus  of 
Ancyra  was  one  of  these  too  thoroughgoing  champions  of 
the  homoousion  doctrine.  He  was  a  friend  of  Athanasius, 
who  long  defended  him  from  the  suspicion  of  Sabellianism ; 
but  when  at  last  his  position  became  too  clear  to  be 
doubted,  the  great  patriarch  was  driven  to  correct  him.^ 
Still  more  pronounced  was  the  Sabellianism  of  his  disciple 
Photinus,  bishop  of  Sirmium,  who  was  condemned  in  a 
synod  at  that  city. 

Meanwhile  the  Arians  were  pushing  their  views  to  a 
logical  conclusion  with  regard  to  the  whole  conception  of 
the  Trinity.  At  first  only  the  doctrine  of  the  nature  of 
Christ  was  in  question.  But  the  enquiry  could  not  stop 
there.  The  notions  we  entertain  concerning  the  second 
Person  of  the  Trinity  must  affect  our  ideas  of  the  third. 
If  the  Son  is  a  creature,  it  will  be  impossible  not  to  assert 
that  the  Spirit  also  is  a  creature.  Athanasius  met  with 
this  view  when  in  exile  in  the  Thebaid,  coming  across 
Arians  who  went  beyond  Arius  in  asserting  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  not  only  a  creature  but  "  one  of  the  ministering 
spirits " ;  ^  he  says  they  were  called  Figiiraturists,  and 
Fighters  against   the  Spirit.'^       Probably   not  much   would 

^  Oration  against  the  Arians,  iv. 

*  Kal  tQ)v  Trvevfj.aTu)v  XeiTOvpyiKQv  Iv  airb  etvai.  Letters  to  Serapion,  4. 

•  TpoiriKoi,  Trvev/JLaTO/j.axovi'T€s. 


82  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

have  been  heard  of  this  l)y-pr()duct  of  Ariaiiism — since  the 
battle  was  raging  round  tlie  doctrine  of  Cluist — if  it  had 
not  succeeded  in  obtaining  a  champion  in  high  quarters. 
Macedonius  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople  maintained 
the  same  position,  and  consequently  the  party  who  agreed 
with  him  was  known  as  Macedonian.  Since  this  consisted 
largely  of  Semi-Arians,  unlikely  as  we  might  have  supposed 
it,  the  orthodox  were  quick  to  seize  the  new  weapon,  and 
call  all  the  Semi-Arians  Macedonians.  But  that  was  not 
just. 

With  this  babel  of  voices  from  Eunomians,  Acacians, 
Semi-Arians,  Macedonians,  Apollinarians,  followers  of  Mar- 
cellus  and  Photinus,  rending  the  air,  all  more  or  less  opposed 
to  the  party  of  the  three  Cappadocians  in  their  support  of 
the  Niceue  position,  there  seemed  to  be  an  urgent  need  for 
another  general  council  of  the  Church  to  settle  the  various 
disputes  involved.  Accordingly,  Theodosius  summoned  a 
synod  of  the  Eastern  bishops  at  Constantinople.  This 
synod  is  reckoned  to  be  the  second  Oecumenical  Council, 
none  of  the  councils — at  Tyre,  Constantinople,  Antioch, 
Sardica,  Sirmium,  Eimini — which  had  met  in  the  interval 
since  Nicaea,  being  regarded  as  of  that  character.  And 
yet  even  this  council  at  Constantinople  only  represented 
the  Eastern  half  of  the  Church.  Not  a  bishop  from  the 
West  was  present.  Theodosius  only  ruled  over  the  Eastern 
branch  of  the  empire,  and  he  was  only  able  to  command 
the  bishops  within  the  area  of  his  jurisdiction.  The  sole 
justification  for  regarding  the  council  as  oecumenical  is  the 
fact  that  its  decisions  were  accepted  by  the  bishop  of 
Home  and  the  Church  of  the  West.  This  council  first 
assembled  in  the  year  a.d.  381  ;  then  it  broke  up  for  a 
time.  It  reassembled  the  next  year.  There  were  150 
bishops  present.  The  first  president  was  Meletius  of 
Antioch ;  but  he  died  during  the  discussions  and  was  suc- 
ceeded by  Gregory  Nazianzen,  who,  as  we  have  seen,^ 
retired  because  he  felt  out  of  his  element  among  the 
wrangling,  quarrelsome  theologians,  and  his  place  was  then 

'  P.  77. 


THE   CAPPADOCIAN    THEOLOGIANS  83 

taken  by  Nectarius,  his  successor  in  the  patriarchate  of 
Constantinople.  The  council  reaffirmed  the  Creed  of  Nicsea 
and  anathematised  Eunomians,  Semi-Arians  or  Pneuma- 
tomachoi,  Sabellians,  Marcellians,  Photinians,  Apollinarians. 
Our  "  Nicene  Creed,"  which  differs  slightly  from  the  creed 
as  it  was  originally  shaped  at  Nictea,  has  been  long  regarded 
as  the  "  Creed  of  Constantinople."  But  that  view  is  now 
abandoned  by  scholars  for  the  following  reasons  :  The  creed 
omits  strong  auti-Arian  expressions,^  an  omission  that  would 
be  unaccountable  at  this  council,  since  the  council's  raison 
d'etre  was  to  stiffen  up  orthodoxy  against  Arianism  ;  it  was  in 
existence  previous  to  the  assembling  of  the  council,  since  it 
was  mentioned  by  Epiphanius  at  an  earlier  date  ;  it  is  almost 
identical  with  the  creed  of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem ;  for  two 
hundred  years  after  the  council  of  Constantinople  nobody 
is  found  connecting  it  with  that  council ;  we  know  that 
the  council  reaffirmed  the  Creed  of  Nica?a.  Possibly  Cyril 
— who  was  present — read  his  creed  to  the  council  and  got 
an  endorsement  of  it  as  a  creed  he  might  use  in  his  own 
church,  and  if  so  this  fact  may  have  originated  the 
legend.^ 

Meanwhile  the  one  important  conclusion  of  the 
council  was  simply  the  reassertion  of  the  Nicene  position, 
together  with  an  explicit  repudiation  of  whatever  more 
recent  schemes  and  speculations  were  deemed  inconsistent 
with  it.  Some  advance  of  thought  may  be  seen  in  the 
three  Cappadocians,  especially  in  Gregory  of  Nyssa ;  and  a 
very  original  attempt  to  break  up  new  ground  and  carry 
theological  ideas  further  forward  in  explanation  of  the 
incarnation  is  to  be  acknowledged  in  Apoljinaris.  But 
the  latter  is  denounced  as  a  heretic,  and  even  Basil  and 
the  Gregories  have  only  been  utilised  in  defence  of  the 
established  position.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  the  most  original 
thinker  of  the  trio,  comes  to  be  regarded  with  some  sus- 
picion on  account  of  his  sympathy  with  Origen's  uni- 
versalism.      The   council   thinks   it   can  do  nothing  better 

TOVT  icnlv  iK  ttjs  ovcrlas  tou  Trarpos  an  1  Oeov  iK  deov. 
^  See  Hort,  Two  Dissertations. 


84  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

than  fall  back  on  the  decision  of  "the  318,"  now  fifty- 
six  years  old,  and  treated  with  growing  veneration  as  an 
inspired  oracle.  That  decision  was  to  be  the  stamp  and 
seal  of  orthodoxy  for  all  time.  There  remained  to  do 
nothing  more  in  the  matter  than  to  safeguard  it  against 
the  attacks  of  heresy,  which  in  the  meantime  had  risen  up 
to  assail  it  on  all  sides.  Already  the  keynote  of  Eastern 
Christianity  was  sounded.  This  was  to  be  orthodoxy — 
fixed,  settled  dogma,  with  no  encouragement  for  widening 
views  or  the  exploration  of  new  realms  of  truth. 

Having  determined  this  point,  the  council  only  had  to 
proceed  to  certain  practical  decisions  in  its  later  canons. 
The  object  of  one  of  these  was  to  confine  a  bishop's 
authority  to  his  own  district.  Another,  the  third,  declared 
that  "  the  bishop  of  Constantinople  shall  have  the  privi- 
lege of  rank  next  after  the  bishop  of  Eome ;  because 
Constantinople  is  new  Rome  "  ^ — a  decision  of  great  sig- 
nificance in  view  of  the  subsequent  division  of  the  Church. 

1  T^J*  t^v  TOL  Kup(XTavTivovir6\eut  iwlcKoirov  ^x^iv  to,  vpeff^eta  rijs  ri/x^y 
/ieri  rhv  t^s  'FdsfJLv^  iiriaKOwov,  5id  rb  elvai  avTT)v  viav  '?uifn]v.  Observe 
the  preposition — nera,  and  note  the  reason  for  the  position — a  wholly 
political  reason,  and  therefore  thoroughly  characteristic  of  the  Greek 
Church. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  MOVEMENTS  THAT  LED  TO  THE  COUNCIL  OF 
CHALCEDON  (A.D.  382-445) 

(a)  The  Church  historians— Socrates  (to  a.d.  439),  Sozomen  (to 
A.D.  439) ;  Theodoret  (to  a.d.  429),  Evagrius  (to  a.d.  594). 
The  pagan  historian  Zosimus  (to  a.d.  410).  Nicene  and  Post- 
Nirene  Fathers,  "  Chrysostom." 

(6)  Hefele,  History  of  the  Councils,  Eng.  Trans.,  vol.  ii.,  1876  ; 
Bright,  Age  of  the  Fathers,  vol.  ii.,  1903  ;  Stephens,  Life  of 
Chrysostom,  1872  ;  Dorner,  Person  of  Christ,  Div.  ll.  vol.  i.  ; 
Ottley,  The  Incarnation,  part  vi.,  1896  ;  Loofs,  Nestoriana. 

With  the  tragic  death  of  Valens  and  the  accession  of 
Gratian  in  the  West  and  Theodosius  in  the  East  the  long 
Arian  tyranny  comes  to  an  end.  Here  then  a  new 
chapter  opens  in  the  history  of  the  Eastern  Church. 
Theodosius  was  more  generous  in  conduct  and  more  liberal 
in  ideas  than  either  his  enemies  have  been  willing  to  admit 
in  the  one  case  or  his  friends  in  the  other.  One  frightful 
outbreak  of  his  fiery  Spanish  temper  has  left  an  indelible 
stain  on  the  emperor's  memory  in  spite  of  the  humble 
penance  to  which  he  afterwards  submitted.  Hearing  of  a 
riot  at  Thessalonica  in  which  a  general  and  other  officers 
of  the  army  had  been  killed  by  the  populace,  who  were 
indignant  at  the  punishment  of  a  favourite  charioteer, 
although  this  had  been  on  account  of  a  vile  crime, 
Theodosius  flew  into  a  rage,  ordered  the  citizens  to  be 
invited  to  the  hippodrome  as  for  an  expected  race,  and 
set  his  soldiers  on  to  an  indiscriminate  slaughter,  which 
resulted  in  a  massacre  of  5000  men,  women,  and  children. 
Ambrose,  the  bishop  of  Milan,  after  writing  to  the  emperor 
to  express  his  horror  of   the  crime,  though  in  courteous 

86 


86  THE    fiRKKK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

terms,  Rtond  at  the  door  of  his  cliurch  when  Thuodosius 
presented  liiniself  for  the  Christmas  festival,  and  would  not 
permit  his  entrance  till  some  time  after  he  had  humhlcd 
himself  and  confessed  his  guilt.  It  was  an  unheard  of 
act  of  daring.  We  may  note  that  it  took  place  in  the 
independent  West,  not  in  the  obsequious  East,  and  further 
that  it  was  the  deed  of  one  who  had  the  most  exalted  idea 
of  the  duties  of  the  episcopate,  and  who  held  a  very  high 
place  in  the  estimation  of  his  people.  For  all  that,  although 
the  dramatic  event  is  often  quoted  as  an  indication  of  the 
growing  power  of  the  Church  in  its  age-long  conflict  with 
the  empire,  in  so  personal  a  case  as  this  much  must  be  set 
down  to  the  character  of  the  sovereign  who  could  thus 
humble  himself  in  owning  his  wrong-doing  before  a  minister 
of  religion,  like  David  when  accused  by  Nathan.  It  was 
very  different  from  the  Norman  Henry  II.  doing  penance 
at  the  shrine  of  Becket  in  superstitious  terror  and  more 
practical  alarm  of  insurrection. 

In  his  ecclesiastical  policy  Theodosius  ruthlessly 
expelled  Arian  bishops,  treating  them  about  as  badly  as 
his  predecessor  had  treated  the  Nicene  clergy.  They  would 
see  that  they  were  just  paid  in  their  own  coin ;  and  it  was 
only  what  everybody  expected.  The  emperor's  measures 
against  paganism  have  been  misunderstood  and  their  severity 
has  been  exaggerated.  It  is  true  that  much  happened 
during  the  reign  of  Theodosius  to  bring  the  tottering, 
crumbling  fabric  of  the  cult  of  the  old  gods  to  the  ground. 
The  failure  of  Julian's  fanatical  attempt  at  resuscitation 
combined  with  reformation  was  a  plain  proof  that  its  days 
were  over.  It  was  like  the  case  of  Monasticism  in  the 
reign  of  Henry  viii. ;  the  passing  away  of  the  anachronism 
was  inevitable.  From  the  days  of  Cunstantius  laws  against 
sacrificing  had  been  inscribed  in  the  statute  book;  but, 
except  with  reference  to  magic — which  people  dreaded,  the 
demons  being  reckoned  dangerous — and  obscene  ceremonies, 
against  which  the  growing  sense  of  decency  in  a  Christian 
community  revolted,  these  laws  had  not  been  executed. 
Theodosius  put  the  already  existing  and  acknowledged  laws 


MOVEMENTS    TO    THE    COUNCIL    OF    CHALCEDON       87 

in  force.  No  statute  of  Theodosius  ordered  the  destruction 
of  temples — he  was  no  vandal.  The  demolition  went  on 
merrily  in  some  districts,  but  as  the  result  of  popular 
violence,  which  however  found  encouragement  in  the 
known  fact  of  the  emperor's  activity  in  repressing  pagan 
rites. 

It  was  in  this  way  that  the  destruction  of  the  famous 
Serapeum  at  Alexandria  was  brought  about,  although 
Socrates  states  that  "  at  the  solicitation  of  Theophilus, 
bishop  of  Alexandria,  the  emperor  issued  an  order  at  this 
time  for  the  demolition  of  the  heathen  temples  in  that 
city  ;  commanding  also  that  it  should  be  put  in  execution 
under  the  direction  of  Theophilus,  which  occasioned  a  great 
commotion."  ^  First  we  see  the  temple  of  Mithra  cleared 
out  and  its  abhorrent  contents  exposed  to  view.  That 
was  not  an  instance  of  temple  demolition  ;  the  building  was 
not  destroyed.  But  in  the  case  of  the  Serapeum,  inasmuch 
as  the  pagan  party  was  using  it  as  their  fortress,  a  riotous 
attack  was  made  on  it  by  the  mob  led  by  the  monks,  the 
image  of  Serapis  was  hacked  to  pieces,  and  the  temple  itself 
pulled  to  the  ground.  This  act  of  violence  provoked  a 
counter  movement  from  the  pagan  section  of  the  population, 
and  the  result  was  a  street  fight  in  which  many  lives 
were  lost.  Socrates  states  that  most  of  the  victims  were 
Christians,  it  being  found  afterwards  that  very  few  heathen 
were  killed.  We  may  gather  from  this  fact  that  the  pagan 
element  in  the  city  was  still  strong — at  least  in  its  anti- 
Christian  activity,  although  it  did  not  show  much  energy  in 
support  of  its  own  religious- rites.  Other  temples  in  Egypt 
and  elsewhere  were  destroyed,  probably  in  similar  popular 
tumults,  and  nobody  was  punished  by  the  government. 
Still,  Theodosius  himself  had  wished  the  buildings  to  be 
preserved  and  used  as  government  offices. 

Theodosius  did  not  confine  the  distribution  of  offices  to 

Christians ;  he  granted  them  to  pagan's  when  he  saw  merit. 

Thus  he  appointed  Symmachus  consul  and  the  rhetorician 

Themistius  prefect  of  Constantinople  and  even  tutor  to  his 

J  Hist.  Eccl.  V.  16. 


88  THE   GREEK   AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

son  ArcaJius — although  Ijoth  of  tliem  were  pagans.  Alto- 
gether it  may  be  concluded  that,  while  he  did  not  restrain 
the  growing  popular  violence  directed  against  the  buildings 
and  images  of  pagan  worship,  and  even  took  action  to 
suppress  the  ritual,  he  bore  no  grudge  against  persons 
and  was  quite  ready  to  appreciate  the  good  qualities  of 
adherents  of  the  old  religions.  The  empire  which  had 
been  united  for  a  time  was  divided  at  his  death  (a.d,  395) 
between  his  two  weak  sons,  Honorius  in  the  West  and 
Arcadius  in  the  East.  The  latter  was  a  puppet  in  the 
hands  of  his  unscrupulous  minister  Eutropius,  who  induced 
him  to  marry  a  beautiful  Frank  maiden  Eudoxia. 

Meanwhile  the  one  really  great  man  in  the  Eastern 
Church  was  being  brought  into  public  notice  as  much  by 
his  stern  fidelity  as  by  his  unparalleled  pulpit  gifts.  This 
was  John,  first  known  as  a  presbyter  at  Antioch  and  always 
described  by  this  simple  name  during  his  lifetime,  but  now 
recognised  by  his  posthumous  title,  Chrysostom.  Antioch 
was  the  seat  of  a  school  of  Bible  study,  the  method  of  which 
was  very  different  from  that  cultivated  at  Alexandria. 
Following  the  example  of  the  grammarians  in  their  treat- 
ment of  Homer  and  of  Philo  in  his  adaptation  of  the  Old 
Testament  to  current  philosophical  ideas,  the  Alexandrian 
Christian  scholars  took  great  liberties  with  the  Scriptures — 
the  New  Testament  as  well  as  the  Old — in  freely  allegoris- 
ing them.  The  scholars  of  Antioch,  on  the  other  hand, 
pursued  the  method  of  grammatical  and  historical  interpreta- 
tion. For  this  reason,  while  we  are  often  amused  at  the 
ingenuity  of  the  Alexandrian  interpretations  of  the  Bible, 
we  find  Antiochian  expositions  of  permanent  value  as  guides 
to  a  correct  understanding  of  Scripture.  No  commentator 
is  of  more  use  in  this  respect  than  Chrysostom.  He  is 
the  prince  of  expository  preachers.  The  modern  expositor 
is  a  debtor  to  the  great  presbyter  of  Antioch  for  many 
suggestive  ideas  which  he  thinks  he  owes  to  Westcott, 
Lightfoot,  Alford,  or  Matthew  Henry,  but  which  if  he  had 
the  patience  to  trace  the  stream  up  to  its  source  he  would 
see  to  have  sprung  from  the  sound  perceptions  of  Chrysostom. 


MOVEMENTS   TO   THE   COUNCIL   OF    CHALCEDON       80 

It  must  have  been  an  age  of  Bible  reading,  at  least  in  that 
chief  centre  of  Bible  study,  Antioch  ;  for  Chrysostom  assumes 
a  knowledge  of  Scripture  on  the  part  of  his  hearers  which 
few  preachers  of  the  present  day  would  venture  to  take  for 
granted  in  their  congregations. 

It  was  a  crisis  in  the  fate  of  his  city  that  brought 
Chrysostom  to  the  front  as  the  greatest  preacher  of  his  age, 
perhaps  of  any  age.  There  had  been  a  riot,  springing  from 
popular  irritation  at  the  emperor's  demand  for  a  large 
contribution  from  Antioch  towards  a  largesse  for  the  army, 
in  which  the  statues  of  the  emperor  and  empress  were 
destroyed.  No  sooner  was  this  mad  freak  over  than  its 
perpetrators  repented  of  their  folly.  In  the  despotic  East 
the  emperor  and  empress  were  flattered  with  almost  divine 
honours  and  their  statues  treated  with  some  approach  to 
the  veneration  that  the  pagans  professed  for  the  images  of 
their  gods,  that  is  to  say,  they  were  political  idols,  to  insult 
which  was  more  than  treason,  almost  sacrilege.  This  was 
during  the  reign  of  Theodosius,  whose  hot  temper  and 
the  ruthless  vengeance  he  did  not  scruple  to  wreak  on  those 
who  offended  him  were  well  known — though  the  incident  was 
earlier  than  the  massacre  of  Thessalonica.  The  reaction 
was  appalling.  The  people  were  simply  numb  with  horror. 
Then  the  old  bishop  Flavian  set  out  on  a  journey  across 
the  mountains  in  the  snows  of  winter  to  plead  for  his  flock 
with  the  emperor,  who  could  not  but  be  justly  offended. 
Happily,  his  mission  was  successful,  and  he  was  able  to 
return  with  a  pardon  to  be  received  by  the  city  of  Antioch 
on  certain  conditions  that  were  not  unreasonable.  Mean- 
while the  people  sat  terror-stricken,  awaiting  the  verdict  on 
their  crime  and  anticipating  the  worst.  Then  Chrysostom 
seized  the  opportunity  to  conduct  a  mission.  Every  day 
his  church  was  thronged,  while  the  preacher  denounced  the 
luxuries  and  lashed  the  vices  of  his  fellow-citizens.  Like 
Savonarola  at  Florence  he  daringly  attacked  popular  sins, 
directly  accusing  the  trembling  people  who  stood  spellbound 
under  the  scathing  torrent  of  eloquence.  The  result  was  a 
revival  of  religion  in  the  dissolute  city. 


90  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

In  the  year  397  the  death  of  Nectarius,  who  had  been 
patriarch  of  Constantinople  for  the  previous  sixteen  years, 
left  the  most  important  post  in  the  Eastern  Church  vacant. 
It  shows  the  good  sense  of  the  imperial  minister  Eutropius, 
worthless  man  as  he  was,  that  this  de  facto  ruler  persuaded 
his  master  to  assign  the  episcopate  to  Chrysostom.  Then, 
focussed  in  the  blaze  of  publicity  at  the  imperial  capital, 
the  wonderful  preacher  more  than  justified  the  discern- 
ment which  had  led  to  his  appointment.  The  influence 
which  he  exerted  from  the  cathedral  pulpit  excelled  that 
of  the  court.  Short  in  stature,  unsociable  in  manners, 
living  the  life  of  a  recluse  in  the  patriarch's  lordly  palace, 
and  so  disappointing  those  who  had  enjoyed  the  princely 
hospitality  of  his  predecessor,  Chrysostom  swayed  the 
people  of  Constantinople  as  he  chose,  by  the  magic  of  his 
eloquence.  Yet  he  was  no  flatterer  of  common  habits  and 
notions.  He  proved  how  the  supremely  great  preacher 
can  win  the  confidence  of  his  congregation  without  ever 
stooping  to  the  arts  of  popularity.  Chrysostom  was  a 
John  the  Baptist  in  his  stern  denunciation  of  prevalent 
evils  among  all  circles  of  society  up  to  the  very  highest.  He 
even  anticipated  the  rude  daring  of  John  Knox  in  com- 
paring the  empress  to  Jezebel — and  that  at  Constantinople, 
the  city  of  subservient  prelates.  At  the  same  time  he  was 
both  just  and  generous,  and  it  was  his  large-hearted  sense 
of  fairness  that  led  to  his  first  troubles  in  the  city.  The 
occasion  was  the  attack  on  the  teachings  of  Origen  that 
was  then  being  promoted  by  the  narrower-minded  monks. 

The  story  is  complicated.  The  most  vehement 
opponents  of  Origenism  were  too  ignorant  to  understand 
the  teaching  they  decried.  These  men  who  came  from 
the  desert  cells  of  Egypt  were  known  as  Anthropomorphists 
from  their  grossly  materialistic  conception  of  God  as 
possessing  a  human  body  with  physical  features  like  our 
own,  so  that  the  Scripture  references  to  His  eyes,  ears, 
hands,  and  feet  were  to  be  taken  literally.  When  one  of 
these  simple  souls  was  shown  the  error  of  such  a  notion, 
he    exclaimed    with   tears,  "  They   have    taken    away  my 


MOVEMENTS    TO    THE    COUNCIL    OF    CHALCEDON       91 

Lord,  and  T  know  not  where  they  have  laid  him."  How 
could  such  people  understand  the  profound  ideas  of  the 
philosophic  Origcn  ?  Unfortunately  they  regarded  the  spirit 
of  Origen  as  the  chief  opponent  of  their  own  views,  and  it 
was  in  self-defence  that  they  promoted  the  anti-Origen 
agitation.  The  movement  swelled  to  dangerous  dimensions, 
till  Theophilus,  the  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  who  at  first 
had  opposed  it,  swung  round,  from  fear  or  policy,  and 
threw  the  aegis  of  his  protection  over  it.  Meanwhile 
the  more  spiritual  monks  were  strongly  opposed  to  this 
literalism,  and  the  opposition  was  led  by  four  old  men  in 
the  Nitrian  desert  who  were  known  as  the  "  tall  Ijrothers  " 
from  their  remarkable  stature.  Theophilus  attacked  these 
men,  and  they  fled  to  Palestine  and  ultimately  to  Con- 
stantinople, where  they  sought  the  intercession  of 
Chrysostom.  The  large  -  hearted  patriarch  would  not 
undertake  to  judge  the  case ;  but  he  wrote  to  Theophilus 
begging  the  Alexandrian  patriarch  to  receive  the  old  men 
back.  This  brought  into  the  field  the  ever  -  recurring 
jealousy  between  Alexandria  and  the  upstart  imperial  city 
of  Constantinople.  Theophilus  charged  Chrysostom  with 
interfering  with  a  matter  that  was  not  within  his  juris- 
diction. Then  the  emperor  was  persuaded  to  summon 
Theophilus  to  Constantinople.  He  came,  but  at  his  own 
pace  and  gathering  adherents  on  the  road,  so  that  when 
he  presented  himself  he  was  strong  enough  to  hold  a 
council  in  a  suburb  of  Chalcedon  called  "  the  Oak,"  at 
which  Chrysostom  was  condemned  and  deposed  on  the 
ground  of  a  number  of  frivolous  charges.  But  the  rage 
of  the  people  and  an  earthquake  which  alarmed  Eudoxia, 
who  took  it  for  a  supernatural  portent,  led  the  empress 
to  persuade  her  husband  to  recall  the  patriarch.  He  was 
received  back  with  wild  joy,  led  into  his  church  by  his 
people,  and  compelled  to  preach  to  them  there  and  then. 
This  uncanonical  act  of  resuming  his  ministerial  office 
after  deposition  was  made  a  ground  of  accusation  against 
Chrysostom  when  he  was  again  out  of  favour  with  the 
court.      It  was  like  the  charge  against  Athanasius  when 


92  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

he  returned  to  Alexandria  on  the  invitation  of  the  civil 
government  after  deposition  by  a  Church  council  at  Tyre. 
But  in  both  cases  the  defence  was  really  unanswerable. 
The  condemning  synods  were  not  fairly  representative,  and 
they  had  no  jurisdiction  over  the  bishops  they  presumed 
to  depose. 

Chrysostom's  second  offence  was  final.  A  silver  image 
of  Eudoxia  had  been  set  up  opposite  his  church  and  the 
inauguration  of  it  was  celebrated  with  dances  and 
buffoonery,  which  the  patriarch  detested  as  morally 
pernicious.  He  vehemently  denounced  the  whole  of  the 
proceedings,  an  action  which  of  course  mortally  offended 
the  empress.  There  is  extant  a  sermon  attributed  to 
Chrysostom  on  this  occasion,  beginning  with  the  sentence, 
"  Again  Herodias  is  raging,  again  she  is  excited,  again  she 
is  dancing,  again  she  is  seeking  to  obtain  the  head  of  John." 
The  sermon  as  it  stands  is  spurious,  and  Gibbon  thouf;ht 
that  this  celebrated  sentence  in  particular  was  certainly 
an  invention ;.  but  the  preacher  who  could  call  a  woman 
"  Jezebel "  on  one  occasion  might  be  imagined  when  more 
provoked  on  a  later  occasion  to  have  designated  her 
"  Herodias."  At  all  events,  Chrysostom's  offence  was 
unpardonable.  For  a  time  he  remained  in  seclusion  at 
Constantinople,  twice  escaping  assassination,  while  the  city 
was  in  a  great  state  of  commotion.  Then  he  was  banished, 
a  synod  condemning  him  for  having  resumed  his  office 
without  ecclesiastical  permission  since  the  synod  of  the 
Oak  had  deposed  him.  After  three  years  of  exile  the 
hardships  he  had  endured  hastened  his  death  (Sept.  14, 
407). 

Passing  on  now  to  the  Christological  controversies 
which  followed  the  formal  settlement  of  the  Arian  disputes 
at  the  council  of  Constantinople,  we  notice  two  opposite 
tendencies  of  thought,  each  of  which  had  to  be  guarded 
against  by  those  who  would  keep  to  the  ever  sharpening 
knife-edge  of  ecclesiastical  orthodoxy.  The  Church  having 
reaffirmed  the  primary  facts  of  the  perfect  Divinity  and 


MOVEMENTS    TO   THE    COUNCIL    OF    CHALCEDON       93 

the  true  humanity  of  Christ,  the  next  question  was  as  to  how 
the  two  elements  could  co-exist  in  one  and  the  same  Person. 
Thus  the  discussion  moved  from  the  question  of  the 
Trinity,  which  had  occupied  the  thoughts  of  theologians 
of  the  fourth  century,  to  the  consideration  of  the  nature 
of  Christ,  which  was  to  engage  the  minds  of  disputants 
during  the  fifth  century,  and  beyond  into  the  sixth  and 
even  the  seventh.  The  controversies  became  more  and  more 
hard  and  narrow,  unspiritual  and  purely  polemical,  as  the 
weary  process  went  on,  till  the  Church  woke  up  with  a  rude 
shock  in  the  advent  of  Mohammedanism,  to  face  the  vital 
question  whether  Christianity  was  to  continue  to  exist  at 
all — in  any  form,  orthodox  or  heterodox.  The  two  heresies 
which  rent  the  Eastern  Church  during  the  fifth  century 
scarcely  touched  the  West,  although  the  bishop  of  Eome 
intervened  from  time  to  time  to  help  towards  a  settlement. 
Therefore  they  belong  essentially  to  the  Oriental  branch 
of  Church  history.  Moreover,  their  effects  are  seen  in 
the  divisions  of  Eastern  Christendom  in  the  present  day, 
one  of  them  being  represented  by  the  Nestorians  of  the 
Euphrates  and  India,  the  other  by  the  Syrian  Jacobites 
and  the  Copts  in  Egypt.  In  the  controversies  of  the  fifth 
century  we  see  the  rise  of  both  the  movements  which  have 
perpetuated  themselves  in  these  two  groups  of  Christians 
out  of  communion  with  the  Greek  Church,  both  of  them 
denounced  by  "  the  holy  orthodox  Church  "  as  heretical. 

We  saw  how  the  Christological  speculations  began  to 
appear  even  during  the  course  of  the  fourth  century  in 
those  two  very  original  thinkers,  Apollinaris  and  Gregory 
of  Nyssa.^  The  former  had  been  condemned  by  the 
council  of  Constantinople  for  denying  the  full  humanity 
of  Christ ;  and  the  latter  had  come  to  be  looked  on  with 
suspicion  on  account  of  his  sympathies  with  the  ideas  of 
Origen.  After  this,  whatever  new  lines  of  thought  are 
followed  had  to  come  within  those  laid  down  in  the  Nicene 
and  Constantinopolitan  settlement.  Still,  within  the  limits 
thus  decided  there  was  room  for  considerable  variety  of 

ip.  79. 


94  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

opinions.      These  turned  in   one  or  other  of  two  directions 
according  as  the  mind  was  directed  to  the  distinction  of  the 
natures  in  Christ  or  to  the  unity  of  the  Person.     Emphasis 
on  the  distinction  between  the  Divine  and  human  natures 
in    our  Lord  issued  in  Nestoiianism.       Insistence  on  the 
unity  of   His   person    pushed   to   an   extreme   led  to    the 
heresy  known  at  the  time  as  Eutychianism.      In  point  of 
fact,  however,  another   and   a    deeper    tendency    may    be 
traced  through  each  of  these  movements  when  we  consider 
the  motives  that  inspired  them.     The  underlying  motive 
of  Nestorianism  was  interest  in  our  Lord's  humanity,  His 
earthly  life,  His  brotherly  relations    with  mankind;    the 
motive  prompting  to  Eutychianism  was  the  aim  of  exalting 
the  Divinity  of   Christ  in  which   the  human  nature  was 
quite   swallowed   up   and  assimilated    to   the  infinite,  all- 
controlling  Divine.      Nestorianism   took   its  origin  in   the 
school  of  Antioch,  where  the  Gospels  were  studied  historic- 
ally and  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus  Christ   highly  valued. 
Antioch  was  in  close  touch  with  Constantinople,  and  thus 
the  influence  of  the  Syrian  city  was  readily  felt  in  the 
great  metropolis.      The  opposition  to  Nestorianism — which 
ultimately  came  over  the  fine  edge  of  orthodoxy  on  the 
other    side,    in   the  form   of   Eutychianism — sprang   from 
Alexandria,   the    home   of    Athauasius    a    century   before, 
famed  as  the  stronghold  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Divinity 
of  Christ.      But  immediately  we  name  these  cities  we  are 
prepared     to    see     how    the    age-long   jealousies     of     the 
patriarchates    of  which  they  were  the  seats  were  roused 
to    range  themselves   on    one    side   or   the   other   of    the 
discussions,  which  thus  obtained  local  colour  and  excited 
partisan  passions  quite  irrespective  of  the  claims  of  truth 
or    the    honour  of    Him    about    whose    nature    the    rival 
disputants  professed  to  be  so  deeply  concerned. 

The  originator  of  the  Nestorian  line  of  thought  was 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  and  his  mind  was  set  going  in 
this  direction  in  opposition  to  the  Apollinarians.  He 
urged  that  for  the  restoration  of  the  shattered  unity  of  the 
cosmos  it  was  necessary  that  God  the  Word  should  become 


MOVEMENTS    TO    THE    COUNCIL    OF    CHALCEDON       95 

a  perfect  man.  Theodore  developed  his  ideas  of  the  moral 
perfection  of  Jesus  as  a  mail,  resting  this  partly  on  the 
Virgin  birth  and  the  baptism,  and  partly  on  His  union 
with  the  Divine  Word.^  He  held  that  there  was  an 
indwelling  of  God  in  Christ,  generically  the  same  as  in 
the  saints,  but  specifically  different.  "  I  am  not  so  mad," 
he  says,  "  as  to  affirm  that  the  indwelling  of  God  in  Christ 
is  after  the  same  manner  as  in  the  saints.  He  dwelt  in 
Christ  as  in  a  son."  ^  It  will  be  seen  that  such  language 
finds  the  actual  personality  of  Christ  in  His  human  nature, 
however  closely  and  in  however  unique  a  way  the  Divine 
may  be  united  to  it.  Thus  the  tendency  of  thought  will  be 
towards  a  separation  into  two  persons — the  Divine  Person 
of  the  Logos  and  the  human  Person  Jesus.  That  will 
not  be  so  far  from  Paul  of  Samosata's  idea  of  the  God- 
influenced  man,  except  that  as  regards  the  Divine,  the 
Logos,  the  Trinitarian  conception  is  preserved. 

Theodore's  views  were  introduced  to  Constantinople  by 
Nestorius,  who  was  appointed  patriarch  in  the  year  428, 
like  Chrysostom  after  having  been  a  presbyter  at  Antioch. 
He  was  blameless  in  personal  character,  and  he  had  gained 
some  reputation  by  his  fluent,  sonorous  eloquence.  And 
yet  he  commenced  with  a  false  step,  for  in  his  first  sermon, 
addressing  the  emperor,  he  exclaimed,  "  Give  me  the 
earth  cleared  of  heretics,  and  I  will  give  you  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  in  exchange ;  aid  me  in  subduing  the  heretics, 
and  I  will  aid  you  in  vanquishing  the  Persians."  ^  Such 
an  untimely  boast  of  bigotry  disgusted  sober  minds,  and 
Nestorius  came  to  be  branded  as  an  "  incendiary  "  in  con- 
sequence. Not  long  after  this  the  heresy-hunter  was 
denounced  as  a  heretic — a  just  retribution  of  which  history 
furnishes  many  instances.*  The  trouble  began  with  the 
sermon  of  a  presbyter  Anastasius,  who  had  accompanied 
Nestorius  from  Antioch  and  shared  with  his  bishop  the 
ideas   of   Theodore,   in    which  the   preacher   attacked  the 

1  De  Incarn.  ^  <hs  iv  vlt^.  '  Socrates,  vii.  29. 

*  It  will  be  recollected  that  Arius  began  by  denouncing  the  heretical 
teaching  of  Alexander  his  bishop. 


96  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

title  Theotokos  ("  Bearer  "  or  "  mother  of  God  ")  as  applied 
to  the  Virgin  Mary.  The  term  had  long  been  in  use,  and 
it  had  the  sanction  of  Athanasius  and  other  trusted  Fathers. 
Nevertheless  Nestorius  defended  his  friend  and  adopted 
the  same  position  with  reference  to  the  title.  The  famous 
Cyril,  a  man  of  intense,  fierce  determination,  now  patriarch 
of  Alexandria,  took  up  the  case  against  Nestorius.  His 
record  was  not  unblemished.  Even  if  he  had  taken  no  part 
in  the  outrageous  murder  of  the  beautiful,  learned,  and 
refined  Neo-Platonist  lecturer  Hypathia,  when  the  monks 
seized  her  in  the  street,  dragged  her  from  her  carriage, 
tore  off  her  clothes,  scraped  the  flesh  from  her  bones  with 
oyster  shells,  and  flung  her  mangled  remains  on  a  fire,  the 
cruel  patriarch  cannot  be  exculpated  from  acquiescence  in 
the  awful  crime.^  Such  was  the  self-appointed  champion 
of  the  faith  in  opposition  to  the  "  blasphemer  "  Nestorius 
The  pope  Celestius  held  a  council  at  Eome  (430),  which 
condemned  Nestorius.  Cyril  was  to  execute  the  sentence 
of  deposition,  but  Nestorius  took  no  notice  of  it. 

The  quarrel  became  so  serious  that  the  emperor 
Theodosius  n.  summoned  a  council  which  met  at  Ephesus 
the  next  year  (431),  and  is  known  as  the  Third  General 
Council.  Cyril  and  his  party  arrived  before  the  friends  of 
Nestorius  from  Antioch  with  John  the  patriarch  of  the 
church  in  that  city  at  their  head.  It  was  assumed  that 
he  had  purposely  delayed.  Anyhow,  Cyril's  haste  in 
procuring  the  condemnation  of  Nestorius  before  the 
council  was  complete,  and  in  the  absence  of  the  defenders 
of  the  accused,  was  scarcely  decent  and  certainly  not  fair. 
Naturally  enough  Nestorius  declined  to  appear  before  so 
one-sided  a  tribunal.  When  John  arrived  he  and  his 
bishops  replied  by  voting  the  deposition  of  Cyril.  Neither 
decision  was  effective  at  the  moment.  Nestorius  relied  on 
the  protection  of  the  emperor ;  but  this  did  not  long  save 
him.  Theodosius  yielded  to  the  powerful  court  intrigues 
that  were  brought  to  bear  upon  him — for  unlike  his 
grandfather  he  had  more  piety  than  power — and  Nestorius 
^  Socrates,  vii.  15 ;  Philostorgius,  viii.  9. 


MOVEMENTS   TO   THE   COUNCIL   OF   CHALCEDON       97 

was  banished  first  to  Petra  in  Arabia  and  then  to  the 
oasis  of  Ptolemais  in  Egypt.  After  being  captured  by 
Arab  brigands  and  suffering  many  other  hardships  for 
which  the  orthodox  authorities  showed  no  pity,  he  died 
from  the  effects  of  ill-usage  in  the  year  439.  Meanwhile 
his  followers  were  hounded  out  of  the  empire,  being  driven 
over  into  Persia.  And  yet  the  influence  of  Theodore  and 
Nestorius  lived  on,  chiefly  owing  to  the  hold  it  got  on  the 
important  school  of  theological  scholarship  at  Edessa. 

The  opposite  tendency  of  thought  which  ripened  into 
Eutychianism  was  just  the  emphasising  and  perhaps  carrying 
further  forward  of  the  ideas  of  Cyril.  Although  this  notorious 
Alexandrian  dogmatist  has  been  canonised  and  although 
his  writings  are  now  prized  among  the  most  highly  honoured 
works  of  the  Fathers,  it  is  not  easy  to  distinguish  his 
position  from  that  of  the  heresy  that  came  under  con- 
demnation at  the  next  general  counciL  He  held  that 
Nestorianism  involved  a  duality  of  persons  in  Christ — the 
human  Jesus  being  one  person,  the  Divine  Logos  another. 
And  yet  he  was  not  content  to  assert  a  unity  of  persons ; 
he  maintained  that  there  was  a  unity  of  nature.^  Nor 
would  he  allow  of  any  real  kenosis  in  the  incarnation. 
While  Jesus  lay  in  the  cradle,  to  all  appearance  a  helpless 
infant,  He  was  actually  administering  the  affairs  of  the 
universe.  When  as  a  man  He  appeared  to  be  ignorant  of 
anything,  this  was  only  in  appearance.  Even  when  He 
said  He  did  not  know  the  day  or  hour  of  the  Parousia,  that 
only  meant  that  He  had  no  knowledge  for  the  disciples 
which  he  could  communicate  to  them. 

But  it  was  the  pronounced  expression  of  such  views, 
carried  perhaps  a  little  further  by  Eutyches,  the  archi- 
mandrite of  a  large  monastery  near  Constantinople,  that  drew 

^  ivuffis  tCiv  TrpojuTruv  will  not  suffice ;  there  must  be  ^fwais  Kaff' 
i>ir6(TTp.aiv.  This  was  quite  in  accordance  with  the  idea  of  virbaTaais  in  the 
Cappadociau  theologians,  so  that  there  is  nothing  peculiar  to  Cyril  so  far  m 
Dorner  seems  to  imply  {Person  of  Christ,  Eng.  Trans.,  Div.  ii.  vol.  i.  p. 
57).  But  Cyril  goes  further  and  has  the  expression  fiia  ^vffis  {Ep,  ad  Aeae. 
p.  115,  quoted  by  Dorner,  op.  ciL),  verbally  at  any  rate  an  anticipation  of 
Monophysitism,  also  iv&nis  ^ucrtK^,  Ep.  ad  vu/ttarchas  Aeg.  p.  9. 

7 


98  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

down  on  tliem   the  disapproval  of  a  lynx-eyed  orthodoxy. 
Eutyches  was  an  obstinate,  narrow-minded  old  man  who 
had    spent    several    years    in    retirement    when    he    came 
forward  to  contest  the  error  of  Nestorianism.     He  did  this 
so  extravagantly  that  to  his  amazement  he  found  himself 
charged  with  heresy  in  an  opposite  direction.     He  main- 
tained that  the  two  natures  in  Christ  were  fused  together 
in   the  incarnation,  so   that   there  became  "  one  incarnate 
nature  of  God  the  Word."     His  opinions  were  condemned 
at  a  local  synod;   but   Eutyches   would   not   submit  and 
demanded    a    general    council,    which    was     convened     at 
Ephesus  by  Theodosius  ii.  and  met  in  August  449.     It 
was  grossly  packed  by   the  friends  of  Eutyches.      Those 
bishops  who  had  taken  part  in  the  condemnation  of  the 
archimandrite  at  Constantinople,  as  well  as  others  coming 
from   the   East,  and   therefore  suspected  of  Nestorianism, 
were  not  allowed  to  vote.     All  reporters  except  those  of 
the  Eutychian  party  were  expelled.     If  any  one  who  had 
taken  part  in  the  obnoxious  Constantinople  synod  ventured 
to   open  his  mouth  in  favour   of  "two  natures,"   he  was 
immediately  shouted    down    with    cries   of    "  Nestorian ! " 
"  Tear  him  asunder  ! "    "  Burn  him  alive  ! "     "  As  he  divides, 
so  let  him  be  divided ! "     The  orthodoxy  of  Eutyches  was 
vindicated,    and    an    anathema    was    pronounced    against 
Nestorius  amid  shouts — "  Drive  out,  burn,  tear,  cut  asunder, 
massacre  all  who  hold  two  natures!"     Dioscurus,  Cyril's 
successor  at  Alexandria,  was  not  satisfied  with  a  mere  dis- 
cussion and  its  vote.     "  Call  in  the  counts,"  he  shouted. 
Thereupon    the    proconsul    of  Asia    entered,  attended    by 
soldiers   and   monks   armed    with    swords    and   clubs    and 
carrying  chains.      The  panic-stricken  bishops  tried  to  hide 
under  the  benches,  in  dark  corners  of  the  church,  wherever 
they  could  creep  out  of  sight.     But  they  were  dragged  forth, 
threatened,  even  struck,  and  ultimately  forced  to  sign  the 
condemnation  of  Flavian,  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
who  was  leading  the  opposite  party. 

It  is  said  that  Dioscurus,  Cyril's  successor,  the  patriarch 
of   Alexandria,   struck   Flavian   in   the   face,   kicked    him, 


MOVEMENTS   TO    THE    COUNCIL   OF    CHALCEDON       99 

stamped  on  him.  Be  that  as  it  may,  Flavian  died  a  few  days 
later  from  the  ill-treatment  he  had  received  at  the  council. 
The  emperor  confirmed  the  decisions  of  this  disreputable 
council.  But  Leo  i.,  bishop  of  Eome,  the  first  of  the  great 
popes,  repudiated  it  as  invalid  and  sternly  denounced  its 
proceedings,  designating  it  Latrocinialis  —  the  "  Eobber 
Council."  ^ 

The  Eastern  Church  was  now  miserably  divided. 
Egypt,  Thrace,  and  Palestine  held  to  the  Eutychian  side, 
while  Syria,  Pontus,  and  Asia  supported  the  opposite 
position,  which  Flavian  had  championed,  but  which  was 
now  maintained  by  the  most  powerful  man  of  his  age,  the 
great  Leo.  The  next  year  (a.d.  450)  Theodosius  ii.  died 
through  a  fall  from  his  horse.  His  sister,  Pulcheria,  was 
already  exercising  great  power  in  the  State,  and  she  now 
married  a  senator  Marcian,  sixty  years  of  age,  who  thus 
becoming  emperor,  at  once  reversed  the  policy  of  his 
predecessor  and  entered  into  communication  with  Leo  for 
the  settlement  of  the  troubled  state  of  the  Church.  An 
indirect  proof  of  what  this  condition  was  may  be  gathered 
from  the  fact  that  the  following  year  Marcian  issued  a  law 
against  brawling  in  church  and  forbidding  meetings  in 
private  houses  or  in  the  street.  The  same  year  he 
banished  Eutyches.  The  result  of  the  emperor's  cor- 
respondence with  the  pope  was  that  Marcian  summoned  a 
general  council  which  was  to  have  met  at  Nicsea,  the  now 
venerated  site  of  orthodoxy.  Subsequently,  to  suit  the 
convenience  of  the  emperor,  the  place  of  assembly  was 
changed  to  Chalcedon  on  the  Bosphorus,  as  that  was  near 
Constantinople. 

The  council  of  Chalcedon  is  the  last  of  the  four  general 
councils  recognised  both  by  the  Churches  of  the  West — 
Protestant  (i.e.  Lutheran  and  Anglican)  as  well  as  Roman 
Catholic — and  by  the  main  body  of  the  Eastern  Church. 
It  met  in  the  church  of  St.  Euphemia,  holding  its  first 
session  on  8th  October,  a.d.  451.  There  were  some  five 
or  six   hundred  bishops  present,  most  of  them  from   the 

*  Leo,  Epis.  95,  in  liieew  and  Fost-Nicene  Father$,  vol.  lii.  p.  71. 


IftO  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Oriental  provinces  of  the  empire.     Thus  this  council,  like 
each   of  its  three  predecessors — at  Niciea,  Constantinople, 
and  Ephesus — was  not  only  held  in  the  East,  but  was  also 
almost  entirely    Oriental   in   composition.      Leo  was   very 
desirous    to    have   the    council  at  Rome.       But  that   was 
not  to  be.     All  the  councils  were  summoned  by  emperors, 
and  it  was  in  the  East  that  the  imperial  government  held 
supreme    sway  over  the  Church.     No  emperor  with   any 
concern    for    his  authority   could   have    consented    to  the 
assembly   of  a  general   council   of  the   Church   at   Rome, 
especially  under  so  important  a  person  as  Leo  i.,  who  was 
really  much   more   influential  in  the  West   than  Marcian 
liimself.     Leo  was  not  present ;  but  he  exerted  a  weighty 
influence   on   the  proceedings  of  the  council.      The  papal 
delegates  insisted  that  Dioscurus  should  not  be  allowed  to 
sit  as  a  judge  in  a  case  where  his  own  conduct  was  on  trial 
He  was  condemned,  and  deposed,  and  subsequently  banished 
to  Gangra  in  Faphlagonia,  where  he  died  three  years  later 
(a.d.  454).      Although  this  was  on  the  ground  of  his  mis- 
conduct at  Ephesus  and  his  having  dared  to  excommunicate 
"  the    most   holy   and  most  blessed   archbishop  of  Rome," 
the    heresy    he    had    defended   was    condemned.       Having 
first  confirmed  the  decrees  of  the  three  earlier  councils,  the 
council  of  Chalcedon  anathematised  Nestorianism  on  the  one 
hand,  and  Eutychianism  on  the  other.      Leo's  "  Tome,"  an  im- 
portant doctrinal  statement  contained  in  a  letter  which  the 
pope  had  addressed  to  Flavian,  was  adopted  as  the  standard 
statement  of  orthodoxy ;  and  to  this  was  added  a  minutely 
discriminating    definition    of    doctrine.       The    "  Tome "    is 
an  admirably  balanced  statement  of  the  Church's  position 
with  regard  to  the  unity  of  the  Person  and  the  distinction 
of  the  two  natures  in  Christ,  and  the  formula  of  Chalcedon 
which  accepts    and    confirms  this  statement  carefully   re- 
capitulates   the    ideas    contained    therein.       It    is    to    be 
observed  that  neither  document  attempts  any  explanation 
of  the  incarnation,  nor  does  either  really  attempt  to  resolve 
the  apparent  paradox  propounded  by  its  definitions.     Each 
is  content  to  define  the  orthodox  position,  clearly,  unmistak- 


MOVEMENTS    TO    THE    COUNCIL    OF    CHALCEDON       1  0 1 

ably,  finally.  In  these  two  documents  we  have  the 
Church's  authoritative  declaration  of  the  incarnation.  The 
settlement  of  Chalcedon  declares  that,  "  We,  therefore, 
following  the  Holy  Fathers,  confess  one  and  the  same  Son, 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and  we  do  with  one  voice  teach, 
that  He  is  perfect  in  Godhead  and  that  He  is  perfect  in 
Manhood,  being  truly  God  and  truly  Man  ;  that  He  is  of 
a  reasonable  soul  and  body,  consubstantial  with  the  Father 
as  touching  His  Godhead,  and  consubstantial  with  us  as 
touching  His  Manhood  .  .  .  acknowledged  to  be  in  two 
natures  without  confusion,  change,  division,  separation," — 
and  more  to  the  same  purport.  This  then  is  the  final 
orthodoxy,  to  defend  which  has  been  the  main  business  of 
the  theologians  of  the  Greek  Church  for  all  subsequent 
ages.  Those  who  want  more  than  statement  and  defence ; 
those  who  desire  metaphysical  explanation,  must  look 
elsewhere  than  to  the  orthodox  confession  of  the  Eastern 
theologians. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE   MONOPHYSITE  TROUBLES 

(a)  Evagrius  ;    Nicephorus ;    Procopius ;    Theodore    tlie    Reader, 

fragments  (to  a.d.  518).     Mansi,  Sacrorum  conciliorum  .  .  . 

collectio,  vii. 
(6)  Dorner,  Person  of  Christ,  Eng.  Trans.,  Div.  ii.  i.,  1861  ;  Hefele, 

Hist,  of  Councils,  Eng.  Trans.,  vol.  iii.,  1883 ;  vol.  iv.,  1895  ; 

Ottley,  Incarnation,  part  vii.,  1896. 

The  sequel  to  the  council  of  Chalcedon  was  more  like  the 
sequel  to  the  council  of  Nicaea  than  the  history  consequent 
to  the  council  of  Constantinople.  That  second  general 
council  which  condemned  Arianism  did  really  seem  to  be 
successful,  for  after  it  we  hear  much  less  of  the  heresy 
within  the  borders  of  the  empire ;  but  then,  as  we  have 
observed,  it  was  already  breaking  up  in  consequence  of 
internal  divisions.  On  the  other  hand,  the  fourth  general 
council,  like  the  venerated  first  council,  was  quite  unable 
to  suppress  the  heresies  it  was  especially  summoned  to 
condemn.  Nestorianism  was  only  banished ;  in  exile  it 
spread  and  flourished  among  the  Persian  Christians,  and 
farther  east  Eutychianism,  slightly  modified,  went  on 
within  the  empire  imder  the  new  title  of  Monophysitism. 
By  dropping  the  obnoxious  name  of  its  founder,  who  was 
sacrificed  as  a  victim  to  the  passion  for  orthodoxy,  and 
adopting  a  descriptive  title,  it  was  better  able  to  emphasise 
its  central  idea  and  at  the  same  time  spread  its  influence 
within  the  Church,  although  its  adherents,  being  out  of 
sympathy  with  the  dominant  party,  stood  aloof  and  gradu- 
ally crystallised  into  a  sect.  There  was  some  softening  of 
the  extreme  views  that  had  been  put  forth  by  the  old 


THE    MONOPHYSITE    TROUBLES  103 

monk  Eutyches,  a  man  of  no  breadth  of  mind  or  depth  of 
insight.  The  Monophysites  were  more  refined  and  meta- 
physical in  their  thinking.  While  they  insisted  on  the 
oneness  of  our  Lord's  nature  in  opposition  to  the  Chal- 
cedonian  dogma  of  the  continuance  of  two  natures  in  the 
one  person,  they  were  willing  to  admit  that  He  came  to  be 
the  incarnate  Christ  by  the  union,  the  fusing  together,  of 
two  natures.  Thus  they  would  allow  that  He  was  "  of  two 
natures,"  ^  though  they  denied  that  He  existed  "  in  two 
natures " ;  ^  and  while  with  Eutyches  the  human  nature 
was  so  absorbed  that  it  virtually  vanished,  according  to 
the  Monophysites  Christ  had  a  composite  nature.^  More- 
over, they  admitted  the  continuance  of  the  two  sets  of 
attributes — the  human  and  the  Divine — although  only  as 
qualities  of  one  substance.  The  union  of  the  natures, 
however,  could  not  be  justly  compared  to  a  mere  amalgam 
for  two  reasons.  In  the  first  place,  each  nature  underwent 
change,  the  human  taking  on  Divine  properties  and  the 
Divine  taking  on  human  characteristics.  There  was  this 
difference,  that  change  in  the  Divine  nature  was  only  "  by 
grace,"  an  effect  of  an  act  of  will  done  for  the  sake  of  the 
redemption  of  the  world,  while  full  freedom  remained  to 
abstain  from  it.  There  was  no  kenosis,  no  actual  self- 
emptying,  but  only  a  condescending  to  the  forms  and 
modes  of  a  human  life,  while  the  Divine  remained  in  essence 
unchanged.  Then,  in  the  second  place,  the  Divine  nature 
so  completely  dominated  the  human  element  that,  except 
in  the  outward  appearance  of  a  man's  form  and  an  earthly 
life,  this  human  element  really  counted  for  nothing.  We 
might  state  it  thus.  The  fractional  existence  of  the  human 
nature  being  a  finite  numerator  with  an  infinite  denomin- 
ator, it  was  really  equivalent  to  zero.  If  f  stands  for 
a  finite  and  oo  for  infinity  we  might  express  the  doctrine 

by  the  formula  —  =0. 

When  we  endeavour  to  trace  out  the  course  of  the 

'  ^K  5vo  (pvaeuv.  ^  iv  dvo  <pv(T€ffiv. 

*  Called  fx.ia  tpiais  awderoi. 


104  THE   GREKK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

dreary  Monophysite  controversy  which  circled  round  this 
position  we  do  not  see  on  the  surface  of  it  sufficient  cause 
for  all  the  heat  it  developed,  all  the  dust  it  raised.  Here 
was  a  fine  point  of  theology,  so  difficult  to  determine  that 
only  an  expert  could  state  it  correctly,  and  yet  it  divided 
cities  into  furious  factions  with  howling  mobs  and  fatal 
riots.  It  is  not  enough  to  lay  down  the  cynical  principle 
that  the  heat  of  a  controversy  varies  directly  with  the 
smallness  of  the  difference  between  the  contending  parties — 
although  there  are  not  wanting  instances  apparently  con- 
firming it — as  in  the  quarrel  between  the  "  Old  Lights " 
and  the  "  New  Lights  "  among  the  Presbyterians  of  Scot- 
land. The  long-drawn  Monophysite  controversy  threatened 
the  disintegration  of  the  Church  and  endangered  the  peace 
of  the  empire ;  in  fact  it  did  actually  effect  the  disintegra- 
tion of  the  Church  by  breaking  off  huge  fragments  that  have 
remained  down  to  the  present  day  in  separation  from 
the  Greek  communion,  which  arrogates  to  itself  the  title 
of  orthodox.  Surely  there  must  be  some  sufficient  cause 
for  so  obstinate  a  schism. 

Among  men  earnest  in  their  religious  faith  no  doubt 
the  charm  of  the  Monophysite  doctrine  was  found  in  the 
honour  it  appeared  to  give  to  Christ.  This  view  was  most 
vehemently  maintained  by  the  monks  of  the  Egyptian 
deserts,  men  who  were  at  once  grossly  ignorant  and 
passionately  in  earnest,  of  the  stuff  that  fanatics  are 
made  of,  prototypes  and  in  part  ancestors  of  the  modern 
dervishes.  The  immediate  motive  of  the  movement  into 
which  these  half  savage  monks  threw  themselves  with 
such  fiery  enthusiasm  was  antagonism  to  Nestorianism. 
It  was  represented  to  them  by  Dioscurus  that  the  council 
of  Chalcedon  favoured  that  heresy — which  had  been  con- 
demned at  the  council  of  Ephesus ;  it  was  even  rumoured 
that  Nestorius  had  been  invited  to  Chalcedon  and  had 
only  been  prevented  from  attending  by  his  timely  death 
ou  the  way  thither.  Then  the  Nestorians  were  regarded 
with  horror  as  men  who  divided  Christ  into  two  persons, 
who  really  denied  the  incarnation,  and  who  were  virtually 


THE    MONOPHYSITE    TROUBLES  105 

Unitarians.  To  oppose  this  dishonouring  error  the  Mono- 
physite  presented  himself  as  the  champion  of  the  perfect 
Divinity  of  Christ.  Moreover,  the  popularity  of  the  term 
Theotokos,  the  watchword  of  anti-Nestorianism,  tended  in 
the  same  direction.  With  this,  and  powerfully  aided  by 
it,  came  the  growing  cult  of  the  Virgin,  especially  welcome 
in  Egypt,  the  original  home  of  the  Mother-god  Isis.  The 
visitor  to  Cairo  will  see  displayed  in  shops  of  antiquities 
statuettes  of  Isis  with  Horus  in  her  arms,  found  in  ancient 
Egyptian  tombs,  which  are  almost  perfect  counterparts  of 
Christian  statuettes  of  the  Virgin  and  child.  There  came 
gradually  into  use  such  phrases  as  "  God  was  born  "  ;  "  God 
died,"  The  whole  tendency  of  thought  in  the  Church  was 
moving  in  this  direction.  It  was  rather  hard  on  the  Mono- 
physites  that  they  were  excommunicated  as  heretics,  since 
generation  after  generation  of  the  orthodox  was  moving 
nearer  and  nearer  to  their  position  during  the  course  of 
the  succeeding  centuries.  In  fact,  all  through  the  later 
patristic  period  and  down  into  the  Middle  Ages  the 
humanity  of  Christ  became  more  and  more  shadowy,  and 
His  Divinity  increasingly  dominated  the  minds  of  the  Church 
teachers,  so  that  sorrowful  people  who  were  craving  for 
human  sympathy  turned  from  the  awful  Byzantine  Christ 
to  the  compassionate  Mary,  and  found  in  the  mother  that 
actual  human  sympathy  which  it  had  been  the  object  of 
the  now  neglected  incarnation  to  bring  them  in  her  Son. 
It  is  hardly  too  much  to  say  that  Mary  became  to  all 
intents  and  purposes  the  incarnate  Saviour,  while  the 
humanity  of  Christ  and  His  incarnation  were  lost  in  the 
grandeur  of  His  Divinity. 

But  while  these  religious  and  doctrinal  tendencies  were 
influencing  serious  minds,  the  disgraceful  history  of  the 
dispute  shows  that  personal  pique,  party  passion,  political 
intrigue,  jealousy,  and  ambition  only  too  often  swept  all 
before  them,  impelling  men  to  the  clash  of  collision 
with  little  or  no  genuine  appreciation  of  the  merits  of  the 
cause  they  were  defending.  We  must  go  further  afield, 
beyond  the  Church  and  the  cell,  to  the  decaying  society  of 


106  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

the  empire  in  the  throes  of  dissolution,  for  an  explanation 
of  the  abominations  that  now  accompanied  the  theological 
quarrels  of  monks  and  clergy.  The  squat,  savage  Huns 
from  the  East — the  yellow  peril  of  the  empire,  and  the 
rough,  vigorous  Teutons  from  the  North — its  real  salvation, 
were  now  pouring  over  the  rich  fields  of  southern  and 
western  Europe.  At  the  same  time  the  helplessness  of  the 
legionaries,  due  to  their  numerical  impoverishment  in  the 
dwindling  population  of  the  provinces,  that  was  waiting  for 
the  fresh  blood  of  a  new  healthy  stock,  had  left  the  cities 
a  prey  to  the  worst  elements  of  society.  In  some  respects 
Alexandria  and  Antioch,  and  occasionally  even  Constan- 
tinople, were  now  like  Paris  at  the  time  of  the  Eevolution. 
Men  came  to  the  front  who  in  more  settled  times  would 
never  have  been  heard  of ;  inhuman  deeds  were  done  which 
revealed  the  conscious  corruption  of  an  old  civilisation  as 
more  cruel,  more  foul,  more  bestial  than  the  unabashed 
habitude  of  primitive  barbarism. 

The  Emperor  Marcian  had  forcibly  upheld  the  decisions 
of  the  council  of  Chalcedon  by  forbidding  the  Eutychians 
to  hold  meetings,  to  ordain  clergy,  or  to  build  churches  or 
monasteries.  But  to  silence  an  obnoxious  party  is  not  to 
convert  it.  The  death  of  the  emperor,  in  January  457, 
was  the  signal  for  an  outbreak  of  violence  by  the  followers 
of  Dioscurus  against  his  successor  Proterius  and  the  orthodox 
Alexandrians.  Timothy,  nicknamed  Murus — "  the  Cat  " — 
one  of  the  presbyters  of  Dioscurus,  who  had  been  deposed 
and  banished  to  Lybia,  now  returned  secretly  to  Alexandria, 
and  crept  about  at  night,  cat-like,  visiting  the  cells  of  ignorant 
monks.  On  being  asked  who  he  was,  he  would  answer,  "  I 
am  an  angel  sent  to  warn  you  to  break  off  communion  with 
Proterius,  and  to  choose  Timothy  as  bishop."  ^  Unfortu- 
nately Proterius  had  behaved  like  a  tyrant,  and  had  only 
held  his  position  by  the  aid  of  a  guard  of  2,000  soldiers,  so 
that  Timothy  had  no  difficulty  in  gathering  a  following 
from  the  indignant  populace  as  well  as  from  the  monks. 
Towards  the  end  of  Lent,  with  the  support  of  these 
1  Theodore  the  Reader,  i.  1  ;  see  Gibhon,  chap.  xlii. 


THE    MONOPHYSITE    TROUBLES  107 

adherents,  he  seized  the  great  "  Csesarean  "  church,  and  was 
there  cousecrated  by  two  bishops  whom  Proterius  and  his 
synod  had  deposed.  Meanwhile  the  patriarch  was  sitting 
in  his  palace  with  his  clergy.  A  few  days  later  Timothy 
was  expelled  from  the  city  by  the  civil  authorities.  This 
enraged  the  mob,  who  rose  in  riot  on  Easter  Tuesday,  hunted 
Proterius  into  his  baptistery,  and  there  murdered  him.  After 
hanging  up  his  body  for  a  time,  they  dragged  it  through  the 
streets  and  then  hacked  it  to  pieces.  Some  of  them,  reduced 
to  the  level  of  the  lowest  savages,  devoured  the  entrails. 
The  remains  were  burnt  and  the  ashes  scattered  to  the 
winds.^  The  clergy  of  the  orthodox  party  were  now 
expelled  from  their  churches  and  their  places  filled  by 
men  whom  Timothy  appointed.  Fourteen  of  the  deposed 
bishops,  who  had  been  driven,  as  they  said  in  their  account 
of  these  proceedings,  to  "  a  life  more  full  of  fear  than  that 
of  hares  or  frogs,"  travelled  to  Constantinople  to  lay  their 
complaint  before  the  new  emperor,  Leo  I.^  Timothy  also 
sent  a  deputation  to  represent  his  side  of  the  case. 
Unwilling  to  bear  the  onus  of  a  decision,  Leo  consulted 
the  bishops  of  the  various  provinces,  all  of  whom  but  one, 
Amphilochius  of  Side,  condemned  Timothy,  and,  with  the 
exception  of  Amphilochius  of  Side,  also  accepted  the 
council  of  Chalcedon.^  Timothy  was  described  as  "  a 
tyrant  and  a  man  of  blood,"  "  a  homicide,  a  slayer  of  his 
father,"  one  who  "  became  not  a  shepherd  of  Christ's  sheep, 
but  an  intolerable  wolf,"  and  more  to  the  same  effect, 
though  some  added  the  qualifying  clause,  "if  the  state- 
ments of  the  exiles  were  true."  * 

The  subsequent  career  of  this  unscrupulous  schemer  is 
highly  significant.  In  spite  of  the  condemnation  by  the 
bishops,  and  although  the  pope  wrote  to  the  emperor 
urging  the  deposition  of  such  a  character,  the  influence 
of  his  friends  at  court  delayed  this  action  on  the  part 
of   the  government  for    two   years.     Even   then   Timothy 

^  This  is  stated  in  the  letter  of  the  Egyptian  bishops  to  Anatolius  of 
Constantiuople,  Mansi,  vii.  533. 

2  Mansi,  vii.  536.  ^  Evagiins,  ii.  10.  *  Mansi,  vii.  537  ff. 


108  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

obtained  permission  to  come  to  Constantinople  and  plead 
his  cause,  on  the  cool  assumption  that  the  only  objection 
to  him  was  his  heresy ;  but  thougli  he  was  restored  for  a 
time  he  was  soon  after  again  removed  from  Alexandria. 
Some  years  later,  when  Constantinople  was  in  the  hands 
of  the  usurper  Basiliscus,  Timothy  was  summoned  to  the 
capital  and  welcomed  by  his  admirers  with  the  acclama- 
tion, "Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord." 

Eeinstated  in  his  position  at  Alexandria,  the  outrageous 
hypocrite  took  credit  to  himself  for  his  gentle  treatment 
of  Timothy  Salofaciolus,  who  had  held  the  patriarchate 
for  sixteen  years,  and  now  had  to  make  way  for  the 
returned  exile.  When  his  flatterers  cried,  "Thou  hast 
fed  thine  enemies,  pope,"  he  accepted  the  compliment, 
exclaiming,  "  Yes,  indeed  I  have  fed  them." 

We  may  be  sure  that  Timothy  ^lurus  had  good  reason 
for  acting  so  mildly.  He  could  see  how  popular  his  rival  had 
become.  A  man  of  a  gracious,  pacific  disposition,  Timothy 
Salofaciolus  had  been  rebuked  by  the  Emperor  Zeno  for  not 
exercising  discipline  more  severely.  He  was  so  universally 
appreciated  that  even  Monophysites  would  stop  him  in  the 
streets  to  express  their  personal  respect  for  him  and  their 
regret  at  being  compelled  to  stand  aloof  from  his  com- 
munion. It  is  pleasant  to  meet  with  such  a  character 
amidst  the  narrow-minded  partisans  and  fiery  polemical 
theologians  of  the  age.  We  need  not  conclude  that  he 
was  a  wholly  exceptional  character.  Those  were  times  of 
war,  when  fighting  men  came  to  the  front.  But  mean- 
while no  doubt  many  a  country  pastor  was  quietly  at  work 
on  his  labour  of  love  among  the  members  of  his  simple 
flock,  and  a  host  of  good  men  and  women  were  endeavouring 
to  walk  in  the  footsteps  of  their  Master,  although  history 
has  preserved  no  records  of  their  unexciting  lives.  The 
emergency  into  publicity  of  such  a  man  as  this  amiable 
patriarch  of  Alexandria  lifts  for  a  moment  the  veil 
that  hides  the  better  side  of  the  life  of  the  Church. 
Ecclesiastical    history   is  mainly    the    story  of  important 


THE  MONOPHYSITE  TROUBLES        109 

bishops.  A  picture  of  the  Christian  life  of  their  times 
might  surprise  us  with  its  much  brighter  colours.  Al- 
though subsequently  an  attempt  was  made  to  again 
remove  -^lurus,  it  was  frustrated  on  the  plea  of  his  old  age, 
and  he  was  allowed  to  remain  patriarch  of  Alexandria  till 
his  death. 

Now  the  significance  of  this  extraordinary  story  lies 
in  the  fact  that,  although  the  conscience  of  Christendom 
must  have  revolted  against  the  enormity  of  his  crime,  and 
although  his  subtle,  intriguing  ways  proved  him  to  be 
a  cunning  schemer  as  well  as  a  man  of  violence,  Timothy 
had  a  powerful  following  throughout  his  career,  and  was 
permitted  to  end  his  days  at  one  of  the  highest  posts  of 
honour  in  the  odour  of  sanctity.  The  indignant  protest  of 
the  bishops  voiced  the  wholesome  horror  which  we  should 
expect  all  right-minded  people  to  feel  at  such  deeds  as  he 
had  committed.  Yet  it  only  came  from  the  orthodox  party, 
that  is  to  say,  from  his  enemies.  His  friends  the  Mouo- 
physites  were  ready  to  profit  by  his  wickedness  and  even  to 
condone  it  for  the  sake  of  their  cause.  The  only  approach 
to  an  excuse  for  them  is  that  they  had  a  cause  which  they 
believed  to  be  right  and  true,  that  therefore  they  were  not 
merely  place-hunters.  But  in  view  of  the  development  of 
theological  rancour  and  partizan  passion  which  such  a  state 
of  affairs  reveals,  this  very  excuse  is  a  plain  proof  how 
entirely  the  degenerate  monks  and  their  adherents  in  the 
mob  had  substituted  metaphysical  accuracy  as  their  test  of 
true  religion  for  the  old  sound  idea  of  the  prophet :  "  What 
doth  the  Lord  require  of  thee,  but  to  do  justly,  and  to  love 
mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly  with  thy  God  ? " 

Next  to  Timothy  iElurus  the  most  conspicuous  leader 
of  the  Monophy sites  at  this  time  was  Peter  the  Fuller  (a.d. 
465-474),  the  patriarch  of  Antioch.  It  is  difficult  to 
piece  together  the  several  accounts  of  his  early  life,^  but 
according  to  the  arrangement  of  the  data  worked  out  by 
Tillemont,  he  first  appears  as  a  monk  in  Bythinia.     Expelled 

1  In  Acacius  of  Constantinople,  Theodore  the  Reader,  and  Alexander 
a  monk  of  Cyprus. 


I  1  0  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

fruin  his  monastery  for  heresy  aud  misconduct,  he  goes  to 
Constantinople  and  worms  his  way  into  the  confidence  of 
Zeno,  the  future  emperor.  His  true  character  being  dis- 
covered here  also  he  is  obliged  to  move  again,  and  going 
east  in  the  train  of  Zeno  he  comes  to  Antioch,  where  he 
wins  the  ear  of  the  populace,  especially  those  who  are 
still  in  sympathy  with  Apollinarianism,  persuading  these 
people  that  tlic  patriarch  Martyrius  is  a  secret  Nestoriau. 
The  result  is  a  public  tumult  resulting  in  the  expulsion  of 
Martyrius  and  the  election  of  Peter  to  his  place.^  In  all 
these  historical  studies  it  is  a  wholesome  caution,  due  as 
much  to  justice  as  to  charity,  to  be  slow  to  admit  accusa- 
tions against  the  moral  character  of  heretics  brought 
forward  by  their  opponents.  For  us  the  significant  fact  is 
that  a  Monophysite  secured  the  patriarchate  of  Antioch. 
Thus  for  the  moment  the  rival  sees  are  both  in  possession 
of  representatives  of  the  Alexandrian  doctrine.  Peter  is 
especially  notorious  for  having  supplied  to  the  Trisagion 
the  phrase,  "  Who  was  crucified  for  us."  ^  He  formulates 
the  liturgical  sentence,  "  Holy  God,  holy  Strong  One,  holy 
Immortal  One,  who  for  our  sakes  was  crucified,  have  mercy 
on  us."  This  gave  rise  to  what  has  been  known  as  the 
"  Theopassian  controversy."  Thus,  as  Dorner  justly  re- 
marks, "  Patripassianism  had,  consequently,  returned  in  an 
exaggerated  Trinitarian  form."  ^ 

The  affairs  of  the  Church  in  the  East  now  became 
more  and  more  mixed  up  with  those  of  the  empire.  Leo  i. 
died  in  the  year  474,  and  was  nominally  succeeded  by 
his  daughter  Ariadne's  young  son  Leo  ii.,  who  died  within 
a  twelvemonth,  when  Ariadne's  husband  Zeno  became 
emperor.  He  was  a  rude  Isaurian,  a  native  of  the  moun- 
tainous region  north  of  the  Taurus  range,  and  he  used  the 
opportunities  of  a  court  to  plunge  into  the  most  outrageous 
debauchery.  It  was  not  difficult  for  the  one  strong  person 
in  Constantinople,  the  late  Emperor  Leo  i.'s  widow,  to  raise 
a  revolt  in  favour  of  her  brother  Basiliscus,  before  which 

'  Tilleiiioiit,  Eiiip.  vi.  p.  404  IV.  -  6  (7Tai'/)u3^ets  5i  rj/xas. 

'•'■  J^eisuH  o/C/uisl,  Div.  ii.  vul.  i.  p.  125. 


THE    MONOPHYSITE   TROUBLES  111 

Zeuo  fled  to  his  old  lioiiie  beyond  the  mountains.  Basi- 
liscus  leaned  on  the  support  of  the  Monophysites,  and  even 
dared  to  issue  a  circular  letter  condemning  the  council  of 
Chalcedon — the  first  instance  of  an  emperor  on  his  own 
authority  presuming  to  reverse  the  decision  of  a  general 
council.  It  carries  the  State's  interference  with  the 
Church  a  stage  further. 

Acacius  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople  stoutly  resisted 
this  imperial  favouring  of  Mouophysitism ;  he  draped  the 
cathedral  and  the  clergy  in  black  in  sign  of  mourning  for 
the  calamity  that  had  come  on  the  Church.  Daniel,  the 
greatest  of  the  Stylites  then  living,  came  down  from  his 
pillar,  entered  the  city,  and  preached  to  the  awestruck 
populace.  Crowds  assembled  at  the  gates  of  the  cathedral 
in  protest  against  the  doings  of  the  emperor.  Meanwhile 
the  reign  of  Basiliscus  had  been  disgraced  by  disorderly 
and  violent  scenes  in  the  court.  Thus  another  revolt  was 
provoked  which  issued  in  the  deposition  of  the  usurper  and 
the  return  of  Zeno  to  power.  This  man  was  the  very  last 
person  who  should  have  ventured  to  interfere  with  the 
creed  of  the  Church.  What  could  an  ignorant  debauchee 
know  of  such  abstract  mysteries  as  it  involved  ?  in  what 
spirit  could  such  a  man  handle  them  ?  The  very  idea  of 
such  a  thing  is  shocking  to  the  Christian  conscience.  But 
Zeno  was  a  weak  creature  who  lent  himself  as  a  tool  for 
abler  hands.  It  is  an  ominous  sign  of  the  settled  sub- 
servience of  the  Church  to  the  State,  that  a  great  ecclesiastic 
should  have  condescended  to  make  use  of  so  unclean  an 
instrument.  Nothing  could  more  forcibly  demonstrate  the 
immense  contrast  between  the  condition  of  the  Church  in 
the  East  and  its  condition  in  the  West  than  a  comparison  of 
the  policy  of  Acacius  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople  with 
Leo  of  Eome  who  had  died  but  a  few  years  earlier  (a.d. 
461).  Soon  after  the  Roman  pontiff  had  proved  himself  the 
most  powerful  personage  in  the  West,  saving  the  empire, 
saving  civilisation,  by  his  courage,  energy,  and  abihty,  his 
brother  in  the  Eastern  capital  was  to  be  seen  cringing 
before  the  throne  of  a  low,  semi-barbarous  sensuaHst   in 


112  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

order  to  obtain  imperial  influence  in  favour  of  his  Church 
policy.^  The  result  of  Acacius's  adroit  manipulation  of  the 
emperor  was  the  issue  of  the  famous  document  known  as 
Zeno's  Hcnoticon  (a.D.  482). 

This  document,  which  aimed  at  bringing  the  divided 
Church  into  unity,  sought  peace  by  means  of  vagueness. 
It  was  destined  from  the  first  to  fail,  although  it  was  well 
meant  by  Acacius  whom  we  should  probably  regard  as  its 
author.  While  re-affirming  the  decrees  of  Nicaea  and  Con- 
stantinople, it  asserts  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  "  Himself 
God  incarnate,  consubstantial  with  the  Father  according  to 
His  Godhead,  and  consubstantial  with  us  according  to  His 
manhood  .  .  .  was  incarnate  by  the  Holy  Ghost  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  mother  of  God  " ;  and  that  He  is  "  one  Son,  not 
two."  Further,  it  condemns  those  "  who  divide  or  con- 
found the  natures,"  or  admit  only  a  fantastical  incarnation, 
and  it  anathematises  aU  who  do  or  think  "  anything  to 
the  contrary,  either  now  or  at  any  other  time,  either  at 
Chalcedon  or  in  any  other  synod,"  especially  Nestorius  and 
Eutyches  and  their  followers.^  The  very  different  manner 
of  referring  to  the  councils  of  Nicaea  and  Constantinople, 
on  the  one  hand,  and  Chalcedon,  on  the  other,  is  highly 
significant.  The  Henoticon  was  formally  addressed  to  the 
bishops  and  clergy,  monks  and  people,  of  Egypt  and  the 
Lybian  district,  but  really  only  intended  for  the  benefit  of 
the  Monophysites  in  order  to  reconcile  them  to  union  with 
the  Church.^  They  could  accept  it  without  abandoning 
their  specific  tenets,  while  the  orthodox  could  admit  it 
while  still  holding  to  Leo's  Tome  and  the  Chalcedon  de- 
cision. Some  may  think  this  a  reasonable  compromise  on 
so  difficult  and  abstruse  a  question.  But  no  one  who 
understood  the  temper  of  its  age  could  have  hoped  much 
from  it.       It  failed   to  accomplish   its  immediate  purpose 

^  Robertson,  however,  justly  remarks  that  "  it  must  be  remembered  that 
the  subsequent  quarrel  of  Acacius  with  Rome  has  exposed  him  to  hard  treat- 
ment by  writers  in  the  Roman  interest  "  {Hist,  of  Christian  Church,  vol.  ii. 
p.  275). 

*  Evagrius,  iii.  14. 

'  So  Tillemont  points  out,  Mem.  Ecclis.  xvi.  327. 


THE   MONOPHYSITE   TROUBLES  113 

of  uniting  the  Monophysites  and  the  "  orthodox  "  party  of 
Chalcedon. 

At  Alexandria  the  Monophysite  patriarch  Peter  Mongus 
signed,  and  he  was  allowed  to  retain  his  bishopric  on 
condition  that  he  received  the  Catholics  to  his  communion. 
But  the  result  of  this  concession  on  his  part  was  that  his 
own  party  broke  off  from  him  and  remained  in  stiff  separa- 
tion from  the  main  body  of  the  Church  under  the  title  of 
the  Acephali — "  the  Headless."  So  little  or  nothing  was 
gained  in  Egypt,  the  scene  of  the  schism.  Meanwhile,  the 
unfortunate  document  that  was  meant  to  be  the  flag  of 
truce,  if  not  the  treaty  of  peace,  developed  a  new  line  of 
cleavage  in  quite  another  direction.  This  cavalier  treat- 
ment of  Chalcedon  gave  mortal  offence  at  Rome.  For 
Chalcedon  was  the  most  Roman  in  its  sympathies  of  all  the 
general  councils,  since  its  elaborate  statement  of  doctrine 
had  been  based  on  the  great  Leo's  venerated  Tome.  The 
Henoticon  was  regarded  in  Rome  as  a  distinctly  heretical 
document,  and  it  produced  a  severance  between  the  Eastern 
and  the  Western  churches  which  lasted  for  thirty-six  years. 
Peter  Mongus,  the  one  champion  of  the  document,  was  an 
unworthy  man  quite  unfit  to  act  as  peacemaker,  and  while  he 
was  trying  to  force  his  bishops  to  accept  it  on  pain  of  depo- 
sition, he  was  privately  negotiating  with  the  Pope  Sylvester. 
On  the  accession  of  Felix  to  the  papacy  (a.d.  484),  that 
pope  immediately  took  strong  measures.  He  cited  Acacius 
to  Rome ;  but  Acacius  declined  to  come  at  the  bidding  of 
his  brother  patriarch.  Then  Felix,  with  the  support  of  an 
Italian  synod,  "  deposed  "  Acacius ;  but  the  patriarch  took 
no  notice  of  his  "  deposition,"  and  retained  his  position  im- 
molested.  Thus  the  Henoticon  was  another  wedge  driven 
in  between  the  East  and  the  West,  and  it  scarcely  wanted 
a  prophet  to  predict  what  must  be  the  end  with  this  ever- 
widening  fissure  in  the  Catholic  Church. 

Anastasius,  who  succeeded  Zeno  in  the  year  491,  was 
already  well  advanced  in  age,  and  yet  he  reigned  for  twenty- 
seven  years,  during  the  whole  of  which  time  Rome  stood 
aloof  from  the  Eastern  Church  in  stern  disapproval.  The 
8 


114  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

emperor  w;is  welcnined  as  "  the  sweetest  tempered  of 
sovereigus,"  and  greeted  with  the  (.'ompliincntary  acclaraa- 
tion,  "Eeigu  as  you  have  lived."  ^  Unfortunately  an  im- 
maculate cliaracter  even  when  joined  to  an  amiable 
disposition  will  not  secure  success  in  a  ruler  who  lacks 
discernment  and  vigour.  The  emperor's  spirit  of  toleration 
was  intolerable  to  a  society  which  clamours  for  violent 
polemics.  Gradually  he  was  driven  to  lean  more  and  more 
to  the  Monophysite  side.  Wild  stories  were  told  of  how 
monks  and  priests,  archimandrites  and  patriarchs,  behaved 
like  dancing  dervishes  round  the  old  man,  some  shouting 
"Anathema  to  the  council  of  Chalcedon!"  others,  "Anathema 
to  Eutyches — to  Zeno — to  Acacius  ! " 

Constantinople  now  became  a  centre  of  frequent  dis- 
turbances. The  symbol  of  the  Monophysites  was  Peter's 
addition  to  the  Trisagion,  "  Holy,  Holy,  Holy,  Lord  God 
Almighty,"  consisting  of  the  phrase,  "  Who  was  crucified 
for  us."  When  this  full  sentence  was  sung  in  the  great 
Basilica  the  Catholic  party  shouted  the  Trisagion  in  its 
original  shorter  form.  Soon  the  opponents  came  to  blows 
and  the  quarrel  spread  to  the  streets.  The  orthodox 
party  carried  about  the  head  of  a  Monophysite  monk  on  a 
pole,  crying,  "  See  the  head  of  an  enemy  of  the  Trinity  " ; 
they  lluug  down  the  statues  of  Anastasius,  burnt  the  houses 
of  the  two  prefects,  and  received  the  emperor's  emissaries 
with  a  shower  of  stones.  The  next  day  they  rushed  into 
the  circus  to  see  the  aged  man — now  eighty-one  years  old — 
seated  on  his  throne  without  either  purple  robe  or  diadem. 
Not  having  strength  of  voice  to  make  himself  heard  in  that 
wild,  seething  mob  of  excited  people,  he  proclaimed  his 
readiness  to  abdicate.  Touched  by  the  pathetic  sight  of 
their  feeble,  humiliated  emperor,  the  people  accepted  some 
vague  assurance  that  he  would  respect  the  faith  of 
Chalcedon.  But  Anastasius  was  now  in  the  hands  of  the 
Monophysites,  and  even  after  this  pitiable  scene  he  was 
driven  to  demand  an  anathema  on  the  council  of  Chalcedon 
from  tiie  bishops.      Since  they  refused,  all  over  the  East, 

'  Sec  Gibbon,  chap.  xxxv.  ;  Tilleinont,  Hist,  des  Emp.  vi.  472-652. 


THE    MONOPHYSITE   TROUBLES  115 

but  especially  in  Syria,  orthodox  bishops  were  driven  out  of 
their  churches.  When  the  pope  interfered  some  negotia- 
tions followed,  which  Anastasius  ended  with  unexpected 
dignity  by  declaring,  "  We  can  bear  insults  and  contempt, 
but  we  cannot  allow  ourselves  to  be  commanded." 

Meanwhile,  the  rigour  of  persecution  under  the  domin- 
ance of  the  Monophysites  in  the  East  even  surpassed  the 
uo-ly  record  of  persecution  by  Valens  and  his  Arian  allies 
more  than  a  century  earlier.  The  bad  pre-eminence  in 
these  exploits  is  accorded  to  Severus,  who  was  patriarch 
of  Antioch  from  A.D.  512  till  518. 

These  were  six  terrible  years  for  those  Syrians  who 
adhered  to  the  decision  of  Chalcedon.  Neale,  who  is  too 
ready  to  listen  to  the  denunciation  of  a  heretic  by  the 
orthodox,  paints  the  character  of  Severus  in  the  darkest 
colours.^  But  while  we  must  accept  the  testimonies  of 
bitter  foes  with  some  caution,  it  is  difficult  to  resist  the 
conclusion  that  this  Mouophysite  patriarch  was  a  man  of 
blood.  His  presence  in  Alexandria  and  Constantinople  at 
an  earlier  period  had  been  the  signal  for  sanguinary  outbreaks 
at  both  places,  for  which  he  must  be  held  more  or  less 
responsible.  No  sooner  did  he  obtain  the  exalted  position 
of  the  headship  of  the  Church  at  Antioch  with  its  sup- 
remacy over  the  Oriental  bishops,  than  he  expressly 
anathematised  the  council  of  Chalcedon  in  his  synodical 
letters  announcing  his  enthronement.  A  few  complied  at 
once ;  some  yielded  to  violence ;  others  stovitly  resisted  the 
heretical  patriarch's  contention.  Among  these,  as  Evagrius 
tells  us,  was  Cosmas  the  bishop  of  the  historian's  native 
place,  Epiphanea  on  the  Orontes,  who  sent  his  senior  deacon 
with  a  letter  deposing  Severus.  It  was  a  dangerous 
embassy,  for  the  patriarch  maintained  the  majesty  of  royal 
state  at  his  palace  and  was  held  in  awe  by  all  about  his 
court.  So  the  deacon  disguised  himself  in  woman's  attire, 
and  approaching  Severus  "  with  delicate  carriage,"  having 
let  his  veil  fall  to  his  breast,  acted  the  part  of  a  weeping 
suppliant  presenting  a  petition,  as  he  handed  in  the  letter, 
^  Patriarchate  of  Antioch,  pp.  163,  164, 


116  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

and  immediately  after  slipped  away  unobserved  among 
the  crowd.^  The  anecdote  vividly  illustrates  the  tyranny 
of  the  stern  prelate  and  the  terror  he  was  inspiring.  Of 
course  he  took  no  notice  of  what  he  would  only  regard  as 
a  daring  insult.  Poor  Anastasius  was  now  so  much  under 
the  power  of  the  Monophysites  that  he  ordered  his  military 
commander  in  the  Lebanon  to  eject  Cosmas  and  another 
recalcitrant  bishop  from  their  sees,  although  with  his  usual 
mildness  sending  an  apology  with  the  order,  and  expressly 
stipulating  that  it  must  only  be  executed  if  this  could  be 
done  without  bloodshed.^  Severus  himself,  if  we  are  to 
believe  the  statements  of  the  opposite  party,  acted  in  a  very 
dift'erent  spirit,  loading  orthodox  monks  and  clergy  with 
irons,  slaughtering  some  and  flinging  out  their  dead  bodies 
for  birds  and  beasts  to  devour,  drowning  others  in  the 
Orontes.^ 

^  Evagrius,  iii.  34.  ^  Ibid. 

'  Keale,  Patriarchate  of  Antioch,  p.  164  ;  Theophaues,  p.  136. 


CHAPTER    VIII 

THE  LATER  CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

(a)  Evagrius,  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  ;  Mansi,  ix.  x. ;  Theophanes,  Ghrono- 

graphia  ;  Anastasiiis,  Historia. 

(b)  Gibbon,  chap,  xlyii.  ;  Dorner,  Person  of  Christ,  Div.  ii.  part  i. ; 

Otley,    The   Incarnation,  part  vii. ;   Hefele,   History  oj  the 
Councils,  Eng.  trans.,  vol.  iv. 

I.  The  death  of  Anastasius  and  the  accession  of  the  rough 
soldier  Justin  (a.d.  518)  put  an  end  to  the  Monophysite 
prosperity,  and  with  the  withdrawal  of  the  Henoticon  also 
larought  the  separation  from  communion  with  Eome  to  an 
end.  Except  in  Egypt,  which  remained  Monophysite,  the 
work  of  reunion  was  comparatively  easy.  The  result  was 
a  triumph  for  the  papacy  and  a  strengthening  of  the  power 
of  Rome  in  the  Church. 

In  April  527  Justin's  nephew,  Justinian,  was  associated 
in  the  government  of  the  empire,  and  in  August  he  became 
sole  emperor  by  the  death  of  his  uncle.  He  was  a  man  of 
simple,  frugal  habits,  most  industrious,  and  very  decided  in 
his  adhesion  to  the  decision  of  Chalcedon — proving  his 
orthodoxy  in  the  usual  way — by  persecuting  the  heterodox. 
One  of  the  most  important  of  Justinian's  actions  marks  a 
further  stage  in  the  suppression  of  paganism.  In  the  year 
531  he  closed  the  schools  of  philosophy  at  Athens,  where 
the  Neo-Platonists,  the  most  determined  enemies  of  Chris- 
tianity, were  teaching.  This  was  the  end  of  the  faded  glory 
of  ancient  Athenian  culture.  The  same  year  Justinian 
enacted  that  all  pagans  and  heretics  should  be  excluded 
from  civil  and  military  offices.  According  to  Procopius,  one 
result  of  his  drastic  measures  was  that  some  of  the  ancient 

117 


118  THE    GRKKK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

sect  of  Montanisis  in  Phrygia  shut  tliemselves  up  witli 
their  wives  and  children  in  tlieir  churclies,  set  lire  to  the 
buildings,  and  perished  in  the  flames.^ 

Justinian's  consort,  the  beautiful  and  facinating  Empress 
Theodora,  has  come  down  to  history  as  a  woman  of  utter 
depravity,  to  be  classed  with  a  Messalina  or  a  Lucretia 
Borgia ;  but  this  scandal  is  solely  owing  to  the  account  of 
her  which  Procopius  left  in  his  secret  history,  published 
after  his  death,  according  to  which  she  was  a  notoriously 
vicious  actress  when  she  married  the  staid  emperor.^ 
Nothing  that  the  same  writer  published  during  his  lifetime 
brings  the  slightest  reproach  against  her  moral  character, 
nor  has  any  evidence  been  adduced  to  support  the  charges 
contained  in  the  posthumous  work.  It  appears  that  her 
name  has  suffered  all  these  years  from  a  gross  libel  due  to 
wicked  spite,  or  at  best,  to  the  inventions  of  a  prurient 
imagination,  Theodora  was  hated  by  the  orthodox  party 
on  theological  grounds ;  and  yet  none  of  the  bishops  whom 
she  opposed  ventured  to  breathe  a  word  against  her  reputa- 
tion. Surely  that  is  strong  evidence  for  the  defence. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  she  had  been  an  actress.  But  the 
real  charge  against  her  was  that  she  was  a  zealous  Mono- 
physite.  As  patroness  of  the  heretics,  she  was  able  to 
secure  her  friends  some  advantages  while  the  attention  of 
the  government  was  distracted  by  the  Gothic  invasion 
of  Itftly  and  the  consequent  troubles  that  enveloped  the 
empire. 

Meanwhile  the  interminable  theological  controversy 
was  entering  on  a  new  sphere  in  the  discussion  concerning 
"  The  Three  Chapters."^  This  title  is  given  to  a  formulated 
series  of  accusations — (1)  against  the  person  and  writings 
of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia;  (2)  against  the  writings  of 
Theodoret  in  opposition  to  Cyril ;  and  (3)  against  the  letter  of 
Ibas  of  Edessa,  a  friend  of  Nestorius,  addressed  to  the  Persian 

^  Procopius,  Hist.  Arc.  11.  An  authority  to  be  taken  with  some  suspicion  ; 
but  in  the  present  case  there  does  not  seem  to  be  good  reason  to  doubt  his 
terrible  story. 

'  Hist.  Arc,  9.  *  T/)ta  /ce^dXato. 


THE    LATER    CHRISTOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSIES       119 

Ijishop  Maris.  It  was  cleverly  argued  that  the  real  objec- 
tion to  the  council  of  Chalcedon  was  not  occasioned  by  its 
doctrinal  statements,  but  was  found  in  its  approval  of  these 
men,  who,  it  was  asserted,  were  tainted  with  Nestorianism. 
Justinian  accepted  the  convenient  suggestion,  and  published 
an  edict  condemning  the  accused  writers— one  more  of  the 
many  imperial  acts  of  interference  with  fine  questions  of 
doctrine  in  the  Church.  The  Eastern  bishops,  with  their 
usual  subserviency,  for  the  most  part  submitted  to  the 
emperor's  decree.  The  Westerns,  especially  the  Africans, 
together  with  the  Pope  Vigilius,  with  their  customary  spirit 
of  independence,  refused  to  sign  it.  Thereupon  Vigilius 
was  summoned  to  Constantinople,  where  he  was  detained 
for  about  seven  years,  during  the  first  of  which  Theodora 
died.  At  length  the  pope  so  far  submitted  as  to  secretly 
promise  Justinian  that  he  would  condemn  "  The  Three 
Chapters."  But  when  a  synod  of  Western  bishops  was 
got  together  they  could  not  be  brought  to  a  similar  com- 
pliance. The  emperor  then  issued  a  long  profession  of 
faith  which  he  commanded  the  pope  and  his  bishops  to 
sign.  This  was  an  inordinate  act  of  despotism,  and  poor 
Vigilius,  in  spite  of  his  submission  earlier,  felt  compelled  to 
resist,  and  even  threatened  excommunication  against  all 
who  should  yield.  But  the  vacillating  pope  was  no  Hilde- 
brand,  and  when  soldiers  were  sent  to  arrest  him  he  crept 
under  the  altar,  whence  he  was  being  dragged  out  by  his 
hair  and  beard  when  the  outcries  of  shame  from  the  people 
stopped  the  outrage,  and  he  was  allowed  to  escape  to 
Chalcedon. 

Meanwhile  summonses  were  out  for  a  general  council, 
which  met  at  Constantinople  in  May  553,  attended  by 
165  bishops,  including  all  the  patriarchs  of  the  East,  but 
only  five  African  bishops.  This  council,  known  as  the 
Fifth  General  Council,  condemned  "  The  Three  Chapters."  ^ 
Vigilius,  who  had  excused  himself  from  attending,  was 
terrified  into  submission  to  the  decision  of  the  council, 
after  which  he  was  permitted  to  return  to  Eome ;  but  the 
*  Mansi,  ix.  376  ;  Evagrius,  ii.  38, 


120  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

miserable  man  died  on  the  way,  at  Syracuse  (a.d.  555) 
The  bishops  of  Italy,  Illyria,  and  Africa  broke  off  from 
Rome  becfuisc  of  the  action  of  Vigilius,  some  of  the  churches 
they  represented  remaining  aloof  for  nearly  half  a  century. 

The  council  of  Ephesus  in  its  severe  condemnation  of 
Ncstorianism  had  prepared  the  way  for  Eutyches,  and  so 
for  Monophysitism ;  the  council  of  Chalcedon — acting  under 
the  influence  of  Rome — had  condemned  Eutychianism  and 
thus  apparently  rather  favoured  its  opposite,  Nestorianism. 
Now  the  pendulum  swung  again.  Undoubtedly  this  second 
council  of  Constantinople  indicated  a  partial  reaction  against 
the  council  of  Chalcedon,  and  a  partial  movement  in  the 
direction  of  Monophysitism.  But  it  had  more  important 
issues  in  consolidating  the  Eastern  Church  and  the  authority 
of  the  emperor  over  it  in  opposition  to  the  pretensions  of 
Rome  and  the  claims  of  the  pope.  This,  and  not  the 
doctrinal  decision,  may  be  taken  as  the  real  note  of  the 
so-called  "  Fifth  General  Council." 

On  one  side  the  Monophysite  position  was  now  advanced 
a  further  stage.  Eutyches,  the  originator  of  the  whole 
movement,  had  maintained  that  Christ's  body  was  not  as 
our  body ;  tliat  the  transformation  of  the  human  nature  in 
its  combination  with  the  Divine  affected  the  body  as  well 
as  the  soul.  Similarly,  Dioscurus  had  asserted  that  it  would 
be  profane  to  speak  of  the  blood  of  Christ  as  of  the  same 
substance  with  anything  merely  natural.  In  the  later 
period  Timothy  -^lurus  had  held  that  Christ's  humanity  was 
different  from  ours.  This  was  going  further  than  Apollin- 
arianism,  further  than  Patripassianism,  a  long  way  on 
towards  Docetism.  But  a  new  quarrel  broke  out  among 
the  Monophysite  refugees  at  Alexandria  in  regard  to  this 
question.  It  was  Julian  of  Halicarnassus  who  now  especi- 
ally developed  and  emphasised  the  doctrine  of  the  incor- 
ruptibility of  the  body  of  Christ.  He  taught  that  it  was 
insensible  to  natural  passions  and  weaknesses,  in  opposition 
to  Severus,  the  ex-patriarch  of  Antioch,  who  maintained 
that  the  body  of  Christ  was  corruptible  up  to  the  resurrec- 
tion, after  which  it  became  incorruptible.     Julian  contended 


THE   LATER   CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES      121 

that  it  underwent  no  change  at  the  resurrection.  His 
professed  object  was  not  to  minimise  the  actual  sufferings 
of  Christ,  but,  as  he  argued,  to  exalt  our  conception  of  the 
great  condescension  of  One  who  was  naturally  not  liable 
to  suffering  in  willingly  accepting  it  for  the  sake  of  the 
redemption  of  the  world. 

The  discussion  might  have  come  and  gone  as  an 
innocent  pastime  of  the  refugees,  if  it  had  not  been  for  a 
high-handed  act  of  interference  in  another  quarter.  As  if 
he  had  not  enough  to  occupy  his  attention  in  the  great 
crisis  of  the  empire  brought  on  by  bis  Gothic  wars,  Jus- 
tinian, always  ready  to  meddle  in  Church  affairs,  plunged 
into  this  new  dispute.  While  under  the  influence  of 
Theodora,  on  whom  he  doted  with  an  uxorious  husband's 
infatuation  for  a  sprightly  young  wife,  he  had  yielded  con- 
cessions to  the  Monophysites ;  after  her  death  (a.d.  548) 
he  had  treated  them  more  coldly ;  but  in  his  later  days  he 
had  again  begun  to  favour  them.  Julian's  views  repre- 
sented extreme  Monophysitism,  and  Justinian  adopted  those 
views.  He  went  so  far  as  to  issue  an  elaborate  statement 
afifirming  the  incorruptibility  of  our  Lord's  body,  which  he 
required  the  bishops  to  accept.  Here  was  an  emperor's 
creed  to  be  forced  upon  the  Church  by  the  power  of  the 
State,  an  intolerable  piece  of  tyranny !  If  this  were  sub- 
mitted to,  it  would  be  just  to  say  that  while  the  biahop  of 
Eome  was  pope  of  the  Western  Church,  the  emperor  was 
pope  of  the  Eastern  Church.  In  fact  this  action  went 
beyond  the  normal  papal  pretensions.  Even  popes  left 
it  for  councils  to  decide  the  creed  of  the  Church ;  but 
Justinian  was  usurping  the  function  of  an  oecumenical 
council.  Moreover,  he  was  doing  this  in  face  of  an  excep- 
tionally divided  ecclesiastical  condition  among  his  subjects. 
Not  only  was  he  siding  with  those  whom  the  majority  of 
his  people  regarded  as  heretics,  but,  in  regard  to  a  point 
on  which  those  heretics  were  divided,  he  was  taking  a 
side,  and  that  the  side  of  the  extremists.  The  emperor 
followed  up  his  doctrinal  statement  with  coercive  measures ; 
for  a  despot's  requirement  of  a  creed  is  an  edict ;  it  has 


122  THE   GKEEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

the  force  of  law.  He  deposed  Euiychius  the  patriarch  of 
Constantinople  for  refusing  compliance  with  tlie  imperial 
theology.  He  threatened  the  noble  Anastasius,  patriarch 
of  Antioch,^  but  assailing  him,  as  Evagrius  says,  "  like  some 
impregnable  tower.2  xhe  timely  death  of  the  emperor 
(a.p.  565)  put  an  end  to  further  proceedings. 

Now,  in  order  to  understand  the  policy  of  Justinian  in 
this  matter,  we  must  not  credit  the  vacillating  emperor  with 
theological  bigotry.      The  key  to  the  imperial  policy  in  the 
long  Monophysite  dispute  is  to  be  sought    in    statecraft. 
Before  this  last  piece  of  presumption    the    emperor    had 
repeatedly  interfered  in  the  doctrinal  disputes  of  the  Church, 
and  more  than  once  he  had  ventured  on  making  his  own 
will  known  concerning  one  side  or  the  other.     Several  of 
his  predecessors  had  set  him  an  example  for  such  actions. 
But  in  the  main  the  imperial  aim  throughout  had  been 
what  we  should  call  to-day  an  Erastian  comprehensiveness. 
In  the  West  Justinian  saw  huge  limbs  of  his  empire  being 
torn  awa}-  by  the  Goths ;  in  the  opposite  direction  he  had 
to  watch   the  rival  power  of  Persia,  ever  on  the  alert  to 
snatch,  at  his  Eastern  provinces  ;  and  now  he  had  his  sub- 
jects divided  among    themselves  by  a    bitter  feud.      Tlie 
orthodox  found  it  an  easy  and  congenial  task  to  thunder 
anathemas  against  the  heretics ;  they  felt  no  compunction 
in  cutting  them  off  from  the  Church.      But  the  penalty  of 
the  close  union  of  Church  and  State  now  obtaining  in  the 
Grreek   world   was    that    this    action   was    perilously    like 
cutting  them  off  from  the  State  also,  and  so  manufacturing 
rebels.      No  sovereign  could  take  kindly  to  such  a  wilful 
disruption  ;  in  the  perilous  times  of  Justinian  it  would  be 
simply  suicidal.      Thus  his  policy  naturally  tended  to  the 
reconciliation  of  the  Monophysites.      In  the  earlier  part  of 
his  reign  he  had  assembled  leaders  of  both  parties  with  a 

'  According  to  Evagrius,  "a  man  most  accomplished  in  Divine  learning," 
"accessible  anil  aflahlc,"  yet  "so  strict  in  his  manners  and  mode  of  life,  as 
to  insist  on  very  uiinnte  matters,  and  on  no  occasion  to  deviate  from  a  staid 
and  settled  fraiue,  much  less  in  things  of  moment,"  etc.  {Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  40). 

s  Pnd. 


THE   LATER   CHRISTOLOGIOAL    CONTROVERSIES       123 

view  to  tlieir  coming  to  an  agreement.  It  was  an  abortive 
conference ;  such  conferences  usually  are  abortive  when 
the  question  is  doctrinal,  however  useful  they  may  be  when 
it  is  practical.  It  is  true  that  the  emperor's  last  action 
was  not  conciliatory ;  it  was  to  throw  the  apple  of  discord 
afresh  among  his  people.  Plainly  this  was  a  mistake. 
Justinian  often  acted  fooHshly.  But  his  aim  had  been  to 
bring  even  the  extreme  Monophy sites  into  the  communion 
of  the  main  body  of  the  Church.  The  blunder,  of  course, 
was  that  for  this  purpose  he  was  attempting  to  convert 
this  main  body  of  the  Church  to  an  extreme  form  of  the 
heresy  in  question.  That  is  like  ordering  a  whole  line  of 
troops  to  change  its  pace  to  the  time  of  the  awkward 
squad  which  is  out  of  step. 

Justinian  is  best  known  to-day  by  the  codification  of 
Koman  law  which  bears  his  name.  It  does  not  fall  within 
our  province  to  discuss  that  grand  achievement  which 
determined  the  character  of  European  jurisprudence  for  all 
future  ages.  But  it  should  be  noticed  that  ecclesiastical 
laws  take  their  place  in  the  system  side  by  side  with  civil 
and  legislative.  Some  of  these  laws  date  from  the  time 
of  Constantine  onward ;  others  are  new  edicts  promul- 
gated by  Justinian  himself.  But  the  bulk  of  the  code 
consists  of  old  laws  handed  down  from  ancient  times. 
This  fusion  of  civil  and  ecclesiastical  legislation  is  a  sign 
not  only  of  the  close  identification  of  Church  and  State 
now  obtaining  in  the  empire,  but  also  of  the  absolute 
supremacy  of  the  latter  over  the  former  in  the  Eastern 
provinces  of  the  empire.  The  spirit  of  independence  in  the 
West  and  the  rival  power  of  the  popes  kept  the  same 
tyranny  out  of  the  papal  provinces.  Perhaps  this  is  the 
best  thing  that  can  be  said  for  the  papacy,  and  it  is  a  very 
great  and  honourable  thing  to  be  able  to  say.  If  it  had 
not  been  for  the  popes — especially  the  two  greatest  popes, 
Leo  and  Gregory — Western  Christendom  would  have  been 
in  imminent  danger  of  sharing  the  fate  of  Eastern  Christen- 
dom, the  whole  Church  crouching  subservient  at  the  foot- 
stool of  the  emperor.     And  yet   this   must  not  be   said 


124  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

without  qualification.  While  the  popes  were  the  chief 
champions  of  the  Church's  independence,  the  spirit  of  the 
Teuton  in  the  West  was  very  different  from  the  spirit  of 
the  Eastern  Greek  and  Armenian.  Luther  would  have 
heen  equal  to  defying  an  imperial  pope  in  his  palace  by 
the  BosphoruB. 

II.  The  Monothelete  controversy,  even  more  wearisome 
and  unprofitable  than  the  Monophysite  discussions,  of 
which  it  was  a  continuation  and  a  new  refinement,  belongs 
chronologically  to  the  second  division  of  the  history,  that 
which  opens  with  the  advent  of  Mohammedanism  and 
other  factors  of  mediaevalism.  Nevertheless,  it  is  essen- 
tially a  patristic  subject ;  its  roots  are  altogether  in  the 
past ;  it  has  no  relations  with  the  special  problems  of  the 
new  age.  Logically,  therefore,  and  in  the  classification  of 
subjects,  it  must  have  its  place  in  this  first  division  as 
the  last  flickering  flame  of  theological  thought  lingering 
after  the  blaze  of  light  that  distinguished  the  age  of  the 
great  Fathers  had  faded  away.  Since  here  at  length  the 
long  series  of  discussions  about  the  nature  of  Christ  comes 
to  an  end,  it  will  be  most  fitting  to  see  this  conclusion  of 
patristic  Christology  before  passing  on  to  other  subjects. 

The  Mouophysites  had  contended  that  there  was  only 
one  nature  in  Christ,  the  human  and  the  Divine  being 
fused  together.  Practically  this  meant  that  there  was 
only  the  Divine  nature,  because  the  two  did  not  meet  on 
equal  terms,  and  the  overwhelming  of  the  Finite  by  the 
Infinite  left  for  our  contemplation  only  the  Infinite.  Thus 
the  Monophysite  Christ  was  an  Infinite  Divine  Person,  who 
had  drawn  into  His  being  our  human  nature,  when  He 
condescended  to  be  born  of  Mary,  and  who  had  appeared 
under  this  veil  of  humanity,  but  who  in  His  own  con- 
sciousness and  activity  possessed  and  exercised  all  the 
faculties  and  powers  of  Divinity,  and  these  only,  not  any 
borrowed  from  the  human  nature  which  He  had  completely 
absorbed  and  assimilated.  This  in  fact,  if  not  in  verbal 
statement,  was  the  ultimate  issue  oi  the  Monophysite 
position. 


THE    LATER    CHRISTOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSIES       125 

Now  we  must  regard  the  Monothelete  contention  as 
historically  a  branch  of  the  Monophysite.  But  it  appeared 
as  an  irenicou,  as  a  happy  compromise  granting  to  the 
orthodox  their  main  requirements  and  yet  opening  a  door 
for  the  heretics.  According  to  this  view  Christ  did  possess 
two  natures.  He  was  not  only  of  two  natures,  combining 
in  His  person  the  human  and  the  Divine.  He  remained  in 
two  natures  ;  that  is  to  say,  He  retained  the  two  natures 
subsequent  to  the  act  of  incarnation,  all  through  His 
earthly  life,  and  even  after  the  resurrection,  although  that 
event  resulted  in  a  change  in  the  condition  of  His  body. 
But,  according  to  the  Monothelete,  these  two  natures  were 
so  harmonised  and  blended  in  their  co-operation  that  there 
was  only  one  will  in  Christ,  and  that,  of  course,  the  Divine 
will. 

At  first,  however,  the  notion  of  the  wills  was  not 
raised,  and  the  controversy  began  with  the  question  as 
to  whether  we  are  to  affirm  "one  activity,"^  or  "two 
activities,"^  as  operative  in  Christ.  Sergius,  the  patriarch 
of  Constantinople,  states  that  he  and  Cyrus  the  bishop  of 
Phasis  were  consulted  by  the  Emperor  Heraclius  about 
this  question,  showing  that  whatever  had  been  its  source 
it  was  now  much  interesting  the  emperor's  mind.  True 
to  the  traditional  ecclesiastical  policy  of  his  predecessor, 
but  with  more  vigour  in  the  execution  of  it,  Heraclius 
was  anxious  to  establish  a  modus  vivendi  between  the 
Monophy sites  and  their  opponents.  Thus  from  the  first 
Monotheletism  appears  as  a  political  movement.  It  was 
the  energetic  Heraclius'  proposed  compromise  for  bringing 
together  the  two  parties  whose  bitter  mutual  antagonism 
he  saw  to  be  a  menace  to  the  State.  Sergius  worked  well 
to  further  his  master's  object.  First,  he  had  a  synod  to 
fortify  him  for  his  enterprise ;  then  he  made  good  use  of  a 
collection  of  sayings  of  the  Fathers  supposed  to  favour  the 
view  of  the  one  energy  or  operation,  which  was  attributed 
to  Mennas,  patriarch  of  Constantinople  under  Justinian. 
At  the   third   council   of   Constantinople  (a.d.    680)  this 

^  fila  ivipyeia,  '  Sio  iviftyeiai. 


126  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

(locurnent  was  proved  to  be  a  forgery ;  the  Eoman  legates 
pointed  out  a  discrepancy  of  date,  and  the  monk  who  had 
written  it  was  discovered,  dragged  before  the  assembly 
and  compelled  to  confess  his  guilt.  But  at  its  first 
appearance  it  was  unquestioned.  When  Heraclius  asked 
Sergius  to  supply  him  with  testimony  from  the  Fathers 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  one  activity,  the  patriarch  sent  him 
this  precious  fabrication.  Cyrus  also  stood  by  the  emperor 
and  was  rewarded  by  being  promoted  to  the  patriarchate 
of  Alexandria  (a.d.  630).  Thus  the  two  most  influential 
pati  iarchates  of  the  East  were  now  in  the  hands  of 
supporters  of  the  new  doctrine.  But  it  was  not  to  remain 
unchallenged. 

The  great  opponent  of  the  Monothelete  heresy  was  the 
monk  Sophronius,  who  proved  to  be  the  ablest  and  most 
vigorous  controversial  theologian  of  his  age,  and  who  has 
since  been  classed  with  Athanasius  and  Cyril  as  one  of  the 
chief  champions  of  the  faith.  It  was  no  light  matter  to 
lead  the  opposition,  not  only  against  the  patriarchates 
of  Constantinople  and  Alexandria,  but  also  against  the 
imperial  government.  Sophronius  had  to  undertake  his 
crusade  in  opposition  to  the  united  forces  of  Church  and 
State.  Nevertheless  he  fearlessly  accepted  the  challenge 
which  Cyrus  flung  down,  and  fought  well  for  the  opposing 
position.  Cyrus  selected  for  his  watchword  a  phrase  in 
the  pseudo-Dionysius  writings. 

These  writings,  consisting  of  four  treatises  followed  by 
some  letters,  were  attributed  in  an  uncritical  age  to  St. 
Paul's  convert,  Dionysius  the  Areopagite.  But  we  find  no 
reference  to  them  earlier  than  a  conference  at  Constan- 
tinople in  tlie  reign  of  Justinian  during  the  course  of 
the  Monophysite  dispute  (a.d.  532),  when  they  were 
brought  forward  in  favour  of  the  heretical  position. 
They  cannot  be  much  older  than  this  period.  If  Cyril 
of  Alexandria  had  known  of  them,  surely  he  would 
have  made  use  of  the  excellent  weapons  he  could  have 
found  among  them,  exactly  suited  to  his  purpose.  But 
when    once    in   circulation,    they    were   eagerly   read   and 


THE    LATER    CHRISTOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSIES       127 

before  long  they  were  made  use  of  by  all  parties  in  sup- 
port of  their  several  contentions.  In  course  of  time 
they  came  to  take  a  high  place  in  the  estimation  of 
the  Church,  so  that  we  must  regard  them  as  among  the 
chief  formative  influences  that  issued  in  mediaeval  theology. 
In  the  West  the  papacy  fed  and  fattened  on  them ;  and 
there  scholasticism  drew  from  them  its  root  ideas.  In  the 
East  they  profoundly  affected  the  final  shaping  of  orthodoxy 
under  the  hands  of  the  last  of  the  Fathers,  John  of 
Damascus.  The  pseudo-Dionysiac  writings  are  of  a 
mystical  character,  and  in  them  we  find  Christian  theology 
intermingled  with  Neo-Platonic  thought.^ 

Cyrus's  watchword,  borrowed  from  "  Dionysius,"  was 
the  phrase  "  one  Divine-human  activity."  ^  Sophronius 
thought  this  a  dangerous  expression  detracting  from  the 
humanity  of  Christ  and  bringing  back  the  old  error  of 
ApoUinaris.  When  Cyrus  showed  him  a  document  asserting 
this  single  activity  in  Christ,  Sophronius  was  so  deeply 
moved  that  he  flung  himself  at  the  patriarch's  feet 
beseeching  him  by  the  sufferings  of  Christ  not  to  impose 
such  teaching  on  the  Church.  But  his  entreaty  had  no 
effect ;  the  new  position  was  welcomed  with  enthusiasm 
by  a  number  of  Monophysites,  who  thus  became  reconciled 
to  the  Church.  It  would  seem  for  the  moment  that  the 
policy  of  Heraclius  was  proving  itself  to  be  brilliantly 
successful.  But  this  was  only  the  beginning  of  the 
contest.  The  new  Athanasius  was  not  to  be  daunted. 
Finding  his  appeal  to  Cyrus  of  no  avail,  Sophronius  went 
to  Constantinople  and  laid  an  urgent  plea  before  Sergius. 
This  patriarch,  an  abler  politician  than  his  brother  of 
Alexandria,  saw  the  danger  of  the  situation.  The  wand 
of  peace  was  being  converted  into  a  battle  standard. 
Accordingly  Sergius  endeavoured  to  suppress  the  contro- 
versy.    At  the  same  time  he  expostulated  with  Sophronius 

^  Migne,  Patrol.  Gr.  iii.,  iv.  ;  Westcott,  "Dionysius  tlie  Areopagite," 
GoTitemp.  Review,  May  1867  ;  Kanakis,  Dimiys.  der  Areop.,  nach  seinem 
Oharctcter  ah  Phllosuph  (Leipz.  1S81) ;  Moller  in  "  Herzog." 

-  /ittt  diavdpi.K7i  ifipyeia. 


128  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

for  hindering  the  return  of  thousands  now  separated  from 
the  Churcli,  with  so  much  earnestness  that  the  good  man 
promised  to  remain  silent.  But  when  three  or  four  years 
later  he  was  made  patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  Sophronius  did 
not  consider  the  seal  of  silence  any  longer  binding  on 
him.  The  situation  was  entirely  altered.  In  his  position 
of  influence  he  felt  it  his  duty  to  speak  out.  So  he  gathered 
a  synod  which  pronounced  definitely  for  two  wills  and  two 
activities.  Unfortunately  he  stated  the  result  of  this 
decision  in  such  a  lengthy,  bombastic  document,  that, 
before  he  could  get  copies  of  it  sent  round  to  the  leading 
bishops,  Sergius  was  able  to  present  his  views  to  the  Pope 
Honorius,  who  never  suspected  the  cloven  hoof,  and  in 
his  simplicity  pronounced  in  favour  of  the  essential 
Monothelete  position.  The  pope's  view  was  that  there 
were  two  natures,  each  working  its  own  way — therefore 
not  vdth  only  one  activity — but  still  under  the  control 
of  one  will. 

This  brings  us  to  the  second  stage  of  the  controversy. 
Never  did  a  pope  commit  himself  to  heresy  with  a  more 
innocent  intention.  But  in  point  of  fact  not  only  did 
Honorius  fall  into  what  the  Church  was  afterwards  to 
condemn  as  a  heresy ;  he  even  originated  this  heresy  in 
the  final  shape  which  it  assumed.  Hitherto  there  has 
only  been  a  question  of  one  activity.  Now,  Honorius 
introduces  the  idea  of  the  one  toill.  Sophronius  only 
lived  two  or  three  years  after  this ;  but  shortly  be- 
fore his  death,  since  the  Mohammedan  invasion  then 
prevented  him  from  leaving  Palestine,  he  led.  Stephen 
the  bishop  of  Dore  to  the  site  of  Calvary,  and  there 
solemnly  adjured  him  by  the  sufferings  of  Christ  and 
the  prospect  of  the  final  judgment  to  go  to  Pome 
and  never  rest  till  he  had  obtained  from  the  apostolical 
See  a  condemnation  of  the  doctrine  of  the  single  will  in 
Christ. 

In  the  year  638  Heraclius  followed  the  unfortunate 
example  of  his  predecessors  and  attempted  to  settle  the 
theological  dispute  by  imperial  authority.    At  the  suggestion 


THE   LATER    CHRISTOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSIES       129 

of  Sergiiis  he  issued  an  edict  entitled  Edhcsis  ^  —  an 
Exposition  of  the  faith.  This  was  intended  as  a  pacitic 
regulation.  It  forbade  the  use  of  the  word  "  activity "  ^ 
in  connection  with  the  whole  subject,  and  expressly  pro- 
hibited the  assertion  of  two  activities  as  leading  to  the  idea 
of  two  wills,  which  might  be  contrary  one  to  the  other. 
Thus  it  was  distinctly  Mouothelete ;  it  took  the  notion  of 
the  one  will  for  granted.  The  Ecthesis  was  approved  by 
councils  at  Constantinople,  under  Sergius  and  his  successor 
Pyrrhus,  and  at  Alexandria,  under  Cyrus — which  was  to 
be  expected  since  these  were  now  the  two  Monothelete 
centres.  The  other  two  Eastern  patriarchates  —  which 
would  have  taken  the  opposite  view — were  silent.  An  awful 
calamity  had  overtaken  them.  The  cities  of  Antioch  and 
Jerusalem  were  now  both  in  the  hands  of  the  Arabs ;  the 
Mohammedan  wave  of  conquest  had  swept  over  Syria 
and  Palestine.  The  new  pope  John  condemned  the 
document.  Thus  the  papacy  was  purged  of  heresy.  Then 
Heraclius  was  alarmed.  These  were  not  times  for 
quarrelling  with  so  powerful  a  man  as  the  chief  personage 
in  the  West.  The  one  object  of  his  ecclesiastical  policy 
had  been  the  consolidation  of  his  empire  in  face  of  the 
devastating  flood  of  Mohammedanism.  The  irony  of 
history  is  rarely  more  apparent  than  in  this  dividing  of 
Christendom  on  fine  and  yet  finer  points  of  doctrine  at 
the  very  moment  when  its  very  existence  is  at  stake. 
It  is  like  the  suicidal  folly  of  the  Jews  at  Jerusalem  in 
carrying  on  civil  war  among  themselves  while  the  Eoman 
legions  were  at  their  gates.  Heraclius  saw  the  danger 
and  wrote  at  once  to  the  pope  disowning  the  unfortunate 
edict  and  throwing  the  blame  of  it  on  poor  Sergius. 

Ten  years  later  (a.d.  648)  Constantine  iv.,  the  grandson 
of  Heraclius,  issued  another  mandatory  document  which  was 
called  the  Type^  that  is  to  say,  the  model  of  faith.*  This 
was  less  theological  than  the  Ecthesis,  and  entirely  neutral 
in  tone.     It  forbade  further  discussion  on  the  question  of 

^'l£iK6e<n%  t^s  irlareus.  '  ivipyeia. 

•  6  TiLnro%  irepl  wiarewi.  *  Mansi,  i.  1030. 


130  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

one  will  or  two  wills,  and  commanded  all  parties  to 
be  satisfied  with  the  statements  of  Scripture  and  the 
decrees  of  the  five  general  councils.  It  then  formally 
repeated  the  Fdhesis;  and  it  concluded  with  a  scale  of 
penalties  for  disobedience  —  degradation  for  clerics,  con- 
fiscation of  goods  for  laymen  of  the  upper  classes,  flogging 
for  those  of  lower  station.  The  tyranny  of  this  forcible 
silencing  of  discussion  was  quite  in  harmony  with  the 
methods  of  the  empire. 

Undoubtedly  it  was  high  time  tliat  some  final  step  was 
taken  if  interference  by  the  State  was  to  be  submitted 
to  at  all.  Tlieodore  the  pope  of  Hume  excommunicated 
Paul  the  patriarch  of  Alexandria.  Paul  retaliated  by 
overthrowing  the  altar  of  the  papal  chapel  at  Con-, 
stantiuople  and  insulting  the  pope's  envoys.  The  next 
year  Theodore  died,  and  Martin,  one  of  these  envoys,  was 
elected  to  succeed  him.  The  new  pope  summoned  a  synod 
at  Eome,  since  known  as  the  "  First  Lateran  Council," 
which  condemned  Monotheletism,  anathematised  the  leading 
supporters  of  the  heresy,  and  denounced  "  the  most  impious 
JSdhesis,"  and  "  the  most  impious  Type."  For  this  Martin 
was  arrested  by  the  emperor's  Western  representative,  the 
Exarch,  carried  off  to  Constantinople,  rudely  handled,  and 
flung  into  prison  more  dead  than  alive.  After  suffering 
six  months  incarceration,  and  being  subject  to  repeated 
trials,  the  pope  was  banished  to  Cherson  in  the  Crimea, 
where  he  died  (a.d.  655).^  The  next  most  prominent 
opponent  of  Monotheletism  was  Maximus,  a  member  of  a 
noble  family.  He  and  two  other  champions  of  the  orthodox 
cause  were  dragged  from  Eome  to  Constantinople,  first 
punished  by  having  their  tongues  and  right  hands  cut  off, 
and  then  driven  into  exile. 

At  last  this  disastrous  controversy  was  brought  to  a 
close  by  a  decision  of  the  sixth  general  council — the  third 
council  of  Constantinople — which  the  Emperor  Constantine 
Pognatus  assembled  in  the  imperial  city  on  the  7th  of  Novem- 

'  There  is  a  graphic  account  of  Martin's  cruel  sufferings  in  the  letter 
of  an  unnamed  writer,  entitled  iJvmmemoratio  eonim  qua  scevitef,  etc 


THE   LATER    CHRISTOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSIES       131 

ber,  A.D.  680.  Its  proceedings  were  conducted  with  unusual 
decency  and  impartiality.  The  emperor  presided  during 
most  of  the  sessions,  and  when  he  happened  to  be  absent 
the  presidential  chair  was  left  unoccupied.  This  council 
condemned  Monotheletism,  and  even  anathematised  Pope 
Honorius  for  sanctioning  "  the  impious  doctrines  "  of  Sergins. 
The  heresy  enjoyed  a  temporary  revival  during  the  brief 
reign  of  the  adventurer  Philippicus,  who  publicly  burnt  the 
original  copy  of  the  Acts  of  the  Council.  But  his  death 
was  followed  by  its  rapid  extinction.  After  this  it  only 
lingered  on  among  the  Maronites  of  Lebanon  till  they  came 
under  the  protection  of  the  papacy,  with  which  they  are 
now  in  alliance.  Originated  with  the  sole  object  of  estab- 
lishing peace  and  union,  it  had  been  a  source  of  discord 
from  first  to  last.  The  reason  of  its  failure  is  palpable.  It 
was  an  olive  branch  presented  on  the  point  of  a  sword. 
Such  a  peace-offering  could  only  provoke  war. 


CHAPTER  IX 

ORGANISATION    AND   WORSHIP 

(a)  Nicene  and  Post-Nircne  Fathers;  Fulton,  Index  Canonum ;  The 
Apostolical  Constitutionx ;  The  Ganona  of  Athanasius  ;  The 
Codes  of  Theodosius  and  Justinian. 

(6)  'Biwf^\im\,  Antiquities  ;  Smith,  Dictionary  of  Antiquities  ;  Allen, 
Christian  Institutions  (I.T.L.) ;  Stanley,  Christian  Institu- 
tions, 1881. 

The  Church  which  had  commenced  as  a  simple  brotherhood 
of  Christians  had  now  developed  into  a  highly  elaborated 
hierarchical  organisation.  Genuine  Christianity  with  hope 
of  future  salvation  was  taken  to  be  conterminous  with 
membership  in  the  Catholic  Church.  This  membership 
was  secured  by  baptism,  and  continued  subject  to  discipline. 
Orthodoxy  in  belief  and  tolerable  correctness  of  conduct 
were  recognised  conditions,  failure  in  regard  to  either  of 
which  could  be  punished  with  excommunication — specifically 
exclusion  from  attendance  at  the  Eucharist.  But  in  point 
of  fact  discipline  was  almost  confined  to  the  question  of 
orthodoxy,  and  there  almost  exclusively  among  the  clergy  ; 
so  that  much  laxity  of  conduct  prevailed  among  the  laity, 
who,  though  subject  to  pastoral  oversight,  rarely  suffered 
the  extreme  penalty  of  expulsion  from  the  Church.  In 
other  words,  from  being  a  select  community  dedicated  to  a 
holy  life,  the  Church  tended  to  become  co-extensive  with 
Christendom,  especially  with  the  empire  regarded  as  Chris- 
tian, though  of  course  only  consisting  of  the  baptised. 
Then  those  men  and  women  who  aimed  at  a  higher  life 
began  to  separate  themselves  from  the  secularised  Church. 
Yet  they  did  not  form  a  church  within  the  Church.      They 


OROANTSATION    AND    WORSHIP  133 

lived  the  life  of  ascoticH,  eitfier  yepaiately  or  in  communities. 
These  people — as  we  shall  see  in  the  next  chapter — largely 
escaped  from  ecclesiastical  discipline.  The  monks  to  a 
great  extent  shook  off  the  yoke  of  the  bishops. 

The  centre  of  this  hierarchical  system  was  the  bishop ; 
the  lower  clergy  were  his  ministers  ;  the  higher  clergy  were 
but  bishops  of  important  cities  with  extended  authority 
over  their  brother  bishops.  Episcopacy  was  the  essential 
characteristic  of  the  Church  organisation. 

The  clergy  were  di'awn  from  all  ranks  of  life.  No 
special  training  was  considered  necessary  to  fit  them  for 
their  duties,  and  some  came  direct  from  secular  work  to 
administer  the  affairs  of  the  Church.  In  the  smaller  cities 
bishops  carried  on  businesses  for  their  livelihood — as  farmers, 
shepherds,  shopkeepers,  etc.  It  was  expressly  ordered  that  a 
bishop  should  not  neglect  his  flock  by  travelling  out  of  his 
parish  for  business  purposes,  take  interest  for  loans,  or 
lower  the  wages  of  his  workpeople.  But  where  the  funds 
of  a  Church  were  sufficient  to  support  its  bishop  hia 
engagement  in  secular  affairs  was  discouraged.  Thus  we 
read  in  the  Canons  of  Athanasius  :  "  0  thou  levitical  priest, 
wherefore  dost  thou  sell  or  buy  ?  Unto  thee  are  given  the 
first-fruits  of  all,"  etc.^  So  lucrative  did  the  post  become 
that  in  some  cases  it  was  sought  for  the  sake  of  its  emolu- 
ments ;  2  and  the  bishops  had  to  be  warned  that  the  money 
at  their  disposal  should  be  used  for  the  assistance  of  widows 
and  orphans  or  as  loans  to  other  persons  in  need.^  The 
council  of  Chalcedon  expressly  forbade  bishops,  priests,  and 
monks  to  engage  in  commerce.^  During  the  fourth  century 
it  was  taken  for  granted  that  the  bishop  was  a  married 
man.  Thus  in  the  Canons  of  Athanasius,  the  Pauline 
precept  is  repeated  that  "  the  bishop  must  be  in  all  things 
lilameless,  married  to  one  wife,"  etc. ;  ^   and    again,  "  The 

^  Ccmons  of  Athcmasius,  iii.  The  probable  genuineness  of  these  Canons 
has  been  vindicated  by  Mr.  Crumm,  who  has  clearly  demonstrated  their 
antiquity. 

2  Ibid.  V.  ^  Ibid.  vi.  *  Canons  of  Chalcedon,  ill. 

^  Canons  of  Athanasius,  v. 


134  THE   (iREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

priests  must  behave  themselves  according  as  the  apostles 
have  ordained ;  wherefore  the  bishop  must  be  in  nothing 
blameworthy,  married  to  one  wife,"  etc.^  Gregory  of 
Xazianzus's  father  was  the  bishop  of  that  town.  Of  course 
the  case  of  monks  who  became  bishops  was  different. 

While  a  college  training  was  not  considered  to  be 
essential  as  a  preparation  for  the  ministry,  the  more  famous 
bishops  were  highly  educated  men.  Literary  culture  was 
acquired  at  Ciesarea,  Alexandria,  Constantinople,  and  above 
all  at  Athens ;  theological  training  was  taken  after  this 
in  one  of  the  great  schools  of  theology,  at  Alexandria, 
Antioch,  or  Edessa.  The  canonical  age  for  the  priesthood 
or  a  bishopric  was  thirty.  One  of  the  Sardican  canons  (a.d. 
346,  347)  ordered  that  if  a  rich  man  or  a  lawyer  were 
proposed  as  bishop  he  should  not  be  appointed  till  he  had 
ascended  by  degrees  through  the  offices  of  reader,  deacon, 
and  priest,  and  that  he  should  spend  a  considerable  time  in 
each  grade  of  the  ministry.  But  this  rule  of  caution  was 
frequently  set  aside,  and  candidates  were  hurried  through 
the  inferior  orders  when  their  appointment  was  urgent. 
The  bishops  were  supposed  to  be  elected  by  their  con- 
gregations ;  but  more  often  they  were  designated  by  the 
metropolitans  of  their  provinces,  with  the  co-operation  of 
the  neighbouring  bishops.  While  the  priesthood  of  the 
clergy  was  now  universally  recognised,  their  social  separation 
from  the  laity  was  a  slow  and  gradual  process.  At  first 
they  wore  no  distinctive  vestments.  By  the  beginning  of 
the  fifth  century  some  among  them  began  to  don  clothing 
of  a  more  sober  hue  than  was  fashionable  at  the  time.  So 
they  appeared  as  the  Puritans  or  Quakers  among  the  gay 
society  people  of  their  day.  Jerome  condemned  this  distinc- 
tion of  dress.  The  sixth  century  saw  the  invention  of  the 
tonsure.  The  clergy  were  now  forbidden  to  wear  the  long 
liair  of  the  dandies  of  their  day.  The  unmarried  clergy 
lived  together  under  tlie  eye  of  their  bishop  and  slept  in  a 
common  dormitory. 

The  bishop  presides  over  his  own  church  and  also  the 

'  Canons  of  Athanasius,  vi. 


ORGANISATION    AND    WORSHIP  135 

surrounding  district,  which  is  known  in  the  East  as  a 
"  parish,"  not  a  "  diocese "  —  that  word  being  applied 
politically  to  a  large  division  of  the  empire.  It  is 
his  function  to  appoint  and  ordain  the  lower  clergy.  He 
is  treasurer  of  the  Church  funds  and  custodian  of  her 
doctrine  and  discipline.  It  is  the  voice  of  the  bishops 
that  settles  both  the  creed  and  the  canons  of  discipline  in 
the  synods.  Bishops  have  certain  privileges  and  immuni- 
ties. They  are  not  to  be  sworn  in  courts  of  justice ; 
they  can  act  as  intercessors ;  they  preside  at  Church  courts. 
Each  bishop  is  strictly  confined  to  his  own  parish.  We 
meet  with  neither  a  plurality  of  bishops  in  one  such 
district,  nor  with  the  pluralism  which  disgraced  the 
Western  Church  in  later  times  when  one  prelate  enjoyed  a 
host  of  Church  dignities.  That  was  expressly  forbidden  at 
Chalcedon.^ 

The  unity  of  the  Church  is  mainly  preserved  by  the 
intercommunication  between  the  bishops  and  their  meeting 
together  in  local  synods  or  larger  councils.  These  synods 
and  councils  are  not  held  in  our  modern  Presbyterian 
style  at  regular  intervals  for  the  transaction  of  normal 
business,  at  all  events  at  first.  They  are  special 
expedients  resorted  to  on  occasion  for  the  settlement  of 
difficulties.  But  the  council  of  Chalcedon  ordered  that 
synods  should  meet  twice  a  year.^  While  the  oecumenical 
councils  were  always  summoned  by  the  emperor,  local 
synods  were  called  together  by  the  bishops  of  the  chief 
churches  in  the  districts  concerned. 

The  bishop  of  the  principal  city  in  a  province  is 
known  as  the  "  metropolitan,"  and  he  corresponds  to  the 
archbishop  of  a  province  in  the  West.  The  specific 
functions  of  the  metropolitan  are  to  act  with  the  other 
bishops  of  his  province  in  ordaining  bishops — his  consent 
being  deemed  essential  to  a  valid  election ;  to  exercise 
supervision  over  the  bishops  and  take  action  where  discipline 
was  needed ;  to  summon  and  preside  at  synods ;  to  com- 
municate the  decisions  of  synods  to  the  other  metropolitans. 
1  Canon  x.  '  Canon  xix. 


136  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Lastly,  we  have  the  patriarchs,  higher  even  than  the 
metropolitans,  with  corresponding  duties,  namely,  to  ordain 
one  another  and  the  metropolitans;  to  exercise  supreme 
supervision  and  discipline  over  their  section  of  the  Church ; 
to  preside  at  the  larger  synods  and  oecumenical  councils  ;  to 
communicate  with  one  another  and  co-operate  for  the  unity 
and  harmony  of  the  Church,  not  however  as  a  joint  com- 
mittee of  government,  since  in  the  last  resort  each  is 
independent  in  his  own  sphere ;  to  serve  as  the  link  of 
connection  with  the  State,  communicating  with  the  emperor 
and  the  civil  government. 

In  this  way  we  see  all  the  parts  of  the  Catholic  Church 
linked  together,  while  a  considerable  amount  of  home  rule 
is  permitted  for  the  individual  bishops.  The  lower  clergy 
are  directly  responsible  to  their  own  bishops.  While  free 
and  independent  under  normal  conditions,  these  bishops  are 
bound  by  the  canons  of  the  councils,  and  it  is  for  them  especi- 
ally that  the  creed  is  authorised ;  since  they  are  the  custodians 
of  orthodoxy  their  own  orthodoxy  is  a  matter  of  supreme 
concern.  Thus  in  the  main  theological  controversy  is  a 
battle  of  bishops.  At  critical  times,  in  special  emergencies, 
the  metropolitans  may  have  to  interfere  with  the  bishops 
of  their  provinces ;  and  in  great  affairs  affecting  the  whole 
Church  or  branches  of  it  the  patriarchs  take  action. 

Most  of  this  system  was  developed  during  ante-Nicene 
times.  The  one  feature  which  becomes  specially  prominent 
in  the  later  period  is  the  patriarchate.  There  were  five 
patriarchs.  Of  these  only  one  was  in  the  West  —  the 
patriarch  of  Eome.  The  others  were  at  Jerusalem,  Antioch, 
Alexandria,  and  Constantinople.  The  bishop  of  Eome 
presided  over  the  Itahan  and  Gallican  praefectures ;  but 
Milan  and  Ravenna — being  in  turn  imperial  capitals — as 
well  as  North  Africa,  long  clung  to  their  independence.  The 
patriarch  of  Jerusalem  was  exceptional.  He  only  presided 
over  a  very  small  area,  holding  his  post  of  dignity  in  deference 
to  the  sanctity  of  his  city.  The  patriarch  of  Antioch  had 
charge  of  the  fifteen  provinces  contained  in  Syria,  Cilicia, 
Arabia,  and  Mesopotamia  ;  the  patriarch  of  Alexandria  was 


ORGANISATION   AND   WORSHIP  137 

set  over  the  nine  provinces  of  Egypt ;  the  patriarch  of 
Constantinople  had  as  many  as  twenty-eight  provinces 
under  his  control,  contained  in  the  three  imperial  dioceses 
of  Pontus,  Thrace,  and  Asia  Minor. 

At  the  time  of  the  council  of  Nicsea  there  were  only 
three  patriarchs — those  at  Eome,  Antioch,  and  Alexandria. 
Though  the  first  place  was  allowed  to  Rome,  tliey  were 
regarded  as  essentially  equals,  in  recognition  of  an  established 
custom.  Canon  vi.  begins  as  follows :  "  Let  the  ancient 
custom  prevail  in  Egypt,  Lybia,  and  Pentapolis ;  so  that  the 
bishop  of  Alexandria  have  jurisdiction  in  all  these  provinces, 
since  this  is  customary^  for  the  bishop  of  Eome  also. 
Likewise  in  Antioch  and  the  other  provinces,  let  the 
churches  retain  their  prerogatives."  Constantinople  was 
not  then  existing ;  the  building  of  that  city  was  only 
commenced  five  years  after  the  council  (a.d.  330).  Half 
a  century  later  the  patriarchate  of  the  new  imperial  capital 
is  not  only  recognised  in  the  second  oecumenical  council — 
the  council  of  Constantinople  (a.d.  381);  but  it  is  set 
higher  than  its  seniors  in  the  East  and  associated  in  a 
sort  of  double  primacy  with  that  of  Eome.  The  third 
canon  of  this  council  runs  as  follows :  "  The  bishop  of 
Constantinople  shall  have  the  prerogative  of  rank  next 
after  the  bishop  of  Eome ;  because  Constantinople  is  new 
Eome."  2 

The  Greeks  commonly  interpret  this  canon  as  implying 
no  iaferiority  for  their  own  city  by  giving  a  temporal  sense 
to  the  preposition  /xerct.  In  itself  that  iuterpretation 
might  seem  strained ;  but  it  appears  to  be  confirmed  by 
the  less  ambiguous  language  of  a  later  council.  The 
council  of  Chalcedon  (a.d.  451),  in  Canon  xxviii.,  when 
referring  to  "  the  prerogatives  of  the  most  holy  church 
of  Constantinople,  new  Eome,"  decrees  as  follows :  "  For 

^  TovTO  ffvv7]$es  icTiv,  i.e.  this  sort  of  thing,  a  similar  arraDgement  is 
customary. 

^  rbv  fj.iv  TOi  KuvaravTivovwdXewi  iirlaKonov  ^x*"'  ^"^  'Tpe(Tp£7a.  rrji  Tifiiji  /leri, 
t6v  T'Tji  'Vibfxrjs  iiriaKoirov,  5ih  to  elvai  aurijv  viav  'Y'dj/j.-qf.  This  is  confirmed 
by  Socrates,  Hist.  Eccl.  v.  8  ;  and  Sozomen,  Hist.  Eccl.  vii.  9. 


138  THB   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

the  Fathers  rightly  granted  prerogatives  to  the  throne  of 
the  elder  Korae,  because  that  city  was  the  capital.^  And 
the  150  most  religious  bishops,  actuated  by  the  same 
design,  assigned  equal  prerogatives  ^  to  the  most  holy 
throne  of  new  Kome,  justly  judging  that  the  city  which 
is  honoured  with  the  sovereignty  of  the  Senate,  and 
enjoys  equal  privileges  with  the  elder  imperial  Rome, 
should  in  ecclesiastical  matters  also  be  magnified  as  she  is, 
and  rank  next  after  her."  ^  Here  we  have  the  same 
ambiguity  in  the  use  of  the  preposition  fxeToi ;  but  in  this 
case  following  unambiguous  terms  of  equality.  Surely 
the  not  very  difficult  reconciliation  of  the  two  forms  of 
expression  is  that  Rome  is  simply  regarded  as  primus  inter 
•pares.  The  two  patriarchs  are  really  equal  in  rank ;  but 
a  certain  precedence  is  given  to  the  bishop  of  Rome,  for  in 
this  case  the  temporal  sense  of  /xera  is  scarcely  allowable. 

Two  facts  of  importance  should  be  noted  here.  First, 
the  essential  equality  of  the  patriarchs  of  Rome  and  Con- 
stantinople ;  second,  the  purely  political  grounds  of  this 
equality.  It  is  the  imperial  rank  of  the  new  city  that 
gives  dignity  to  its  bishop.  New  Rome  has  no  St.  Peter, 
no  power  of  the  keys ;  she  is  supported  in  case  of  necessity 
by  something  very  different  from  that  mystical  privilege — 
by  the  power  of  the  sword.  Thus  from  the  beginning  we 
see  the  Erastianism  of  the  church  at  Constantinople. 

At  first  the  rivalry  with  distant  Rome  was  not  felt. 
It  was  Alexandria  that  resented  the  honours  accorded  to 
the  upstart  patriarchate.  We  have  seen  how  the  theological 
controversies  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries  were 
entangled  with  personal  jealousies  of  the  patriarchs  of 
Alexandria  and  Constantinople,  and  when  very  pronounced, 
with  the  more  widespread  rivalry  of  the  cities  they 
presided  over.  Subsequently  they  developed  into  national 
and  racial  divisions,  the  Copts  of  Egypt  standing  opposed 
to  the  Greeks   of  Constantinople.      Antioch   was   not   so 

'  5t4  Th  ^acCKiveiv  tt)v  x6\iv  iKdv-qv.  2  ^^  ^^^  TrpecrSeta. 

^  Kdl  iv  Toh  iKKXrjffiaa-TiKois  (is  iKelvrjv  /xeyaXvveaOai  vpdyfj.a<n  dewipav  /ier 
(K(lvr]v  virdpxov(rav. 


ORGANISATION    AND    WORSHIP  139 

directly  concerned  with  this  deadly  feud  between  the  two 
rival  Western  patriarchates.  While  they  were  in  constant 
communication  by  that  highway  of  commercial  traffic,  the 
^gean  Sea,  the  Syrian  capital  lay  back  in  the  East.  Still, 
she  had  her  old  differences  with  Alexandria,  and  she  was 
more  directly  associated  with  Constantinople,  so  that  she 
more  often  sided  with  the  imperial  patriarchate. 

In  the  year  550  Justinian  conferred  on  the  patriarch  of 
Constantinople  the  privilege  of  receiving  appeals  from  the 
other  patriarchs.  By  this  time,  backed  up  by  the  power  of 
the  autocrat,  the  bishop  of  the  chief  city  of  the  empire  was 
threatening  to  become  a  veritable  pope,  in  our  later  sense  of 
the  title.  It  would  have  needed  rare  prescience  then  to  have 
discerned  that  not  Constantinople,  but  Eome,  was  destined  to 
develop  the  monstrous  assumption  of  universal  supremacy 
over  the  Church.  It  looked  as  though  that  city  of  ruins, 
neglected  by  the  emperor,  subject  to  the  ravages  of  successive 
invaders,  pillaged  and  impoverished,  were  doomed  to  decay, 
if  not  to  extinction,  with  her  episcopal  See  and  all  its 
Petrine  claims.  Meanwhile  the  brilliant  metropolis  on 
the  Bosphorus,  with  its  basilicas  and  palaces,  its  wealth, 
its  splendour,  its  luxury,  promised  not  only  to  take 
the  first  place  politically  and  socially — which  indeed  it 
had  already  done  most  effectually — but  also  to  secure 
ecclesiastical  primacy.  Nobody  could  then  have  dreamed 
of  the  proud  triumphs  of  a  Hildebrand.  But  the  Latin 
Church  never  did  dominate  Constantinople  except  at  a 
much  later  period,  and  then  only  for  a  brief  interval  and 
by  brute  force. 

The  rivalry  between  the  two  patriarchs  came  to  an 
acute  crisis  before  the  end  of  the  sixth  century.  Fortun- 
ately for  the  Western  Church  one  of  the  greatest  of  all  the 
popes  was  then  seated  in  the  chair  of  Peter.  This  was 
Gregory  the  Great — the  missionary  pope  to  whose  zeal 
South  England  owes  the  light  of  the  gospel.  He  was  also 
the  Italian  patriot  who  saved  Eome  from  the  Lombards 
when  the  miserable  Exarch  at  Eavenna  had  hopelessly 
failed  to  repel  the  rude   invaders.      Thus   he  followed  in 


140  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

the  brilliant  tradition  of  his  greatest  predecessor,  Leo  I., 
the  almost  miraculous  saviour  of  Rome  from  the  Huns. 
Further,  Gregory  is  reckoned  the  last  of  the  Latin  Fathers. 
If  not  an  original  theologian,  still  he  struck  the  keynote 
of  mediceval  theology,  and  left  in  his  works  almost  all  the 
doctrinal  notions  that  prevailed  during  the  Middle  Ages. 
This  remarkable,  many-sided  man  now  came  forward  as  the 
champion  of  the  Church's  liberty,  rebuking  the  lofty  claims 
of  his  brother  at  Constantinople. 

Gregory  had  been  to  the  imperial  city  at  an  earlier 
time  on  the  bootless  errand  of  seeking  the  aid  of  the 
emperor's  troops  to  defend  Eome  from  the  Northern 
invaders.  When  there  he  had  witnessed  the  elevation  of 
a  famous  ascetic,  "John  the  Faster,"  to  the  patriarchal 
dignity.  No  accusation  has  been  made  against  the  char- 
acter of  this  patriarch,  who  was  said  to  be  personally 
humble  and  unambitious.  But  he  put  forth  the  highest 
claims  for  his  office,  claims  which  were  all  the  more 
dangerous  because  they  were  detached  from  his  own 
individuality  and  urged  with  a  sense  of  loyalty  to  his 
Church.  In  summoning  a  synod  at  Constantinople  in  the 
year  588  to  settle  the  affairs  of  the  Church  at  Antioch, 
John  assumed  the  title  of  "  Universal  Archbishop."  ^ 
Gregory  was  indignant  at  what  he  regarded  as  the  pre- 
tensiousness  of  the  title.  "  I  hope  in  Almighty  God,"  he 
cried,  "  that  the  Supreme  Majesty  will  confound  his  hypo- 
crisy." ^  He  sent  to  the  offending  patriarch  what  in 
writing  to  the  emperor  he  called  "a  sweet  and  humble 
admonition,"  in  which,  as  he  said,  "  honesty  and  kindness 
were  combined,"'  but  promising  an  appeal  to  the  Church  if 
this  failed.  Gregory  also  wrote  to  the  Emperor  Maurice 
urging  that  the  title  of  "  Universal  Bishop  "  was  novel  and 
unheard  of,  and  a  contravention  of  the  precepts  of  the 
gospel  which  enjoin  humility,  and  further,  that  it  deprived 
the  other  patriarchs  and  bishops  of  the  honour  due  to 
them.*     In  both  these  letters  he  claimed  that  the  title  had 

^  oUovfieviKbi  ipxievlaKovos.  -  Gregory  the  Great,  E2)p.  v.  45. 

'  Epp.  V.  18.  *  Epp.  V.  20. 


ORGANISATION    AND    WORSHIP  141 

been  offered  by  the  council  of  Chalcedon  to  the  bishop  of 
Eome,  but  never  used  by  him.  That,  as  Gieseler  points  out, 
was  a  mistake — in  the  way  Gregory  understood  it — for 
the  title  had  only  been  used  generally  for  all  patriarchs.^ 

This  incident  has  been  pointed  to  as  an  instance  of 
papal  aggressiveness,  and  Gregory  has  been  accused  of 
priestly  pride  and  ambition.  But  such  a  view  is  neither 
charitable  nor  just.  It  is  true  that  he  uses  strong  language 
in  his  expostulation  ;  but  patriarchs  were  accustomed  to 
write  to  one  another  with  moral  fervour  and  in  a  tone  of 
authoritativeness  when  they  believed  that  they  had  the 
judgment  of  the  Church  at  their  back.  Gregory  made  no 
direct  claim  for  himself  or  his  office.  The  curious  fact  is 
that  when  the  title  "  Universal  Bishop  "  was  first  appropri- 
ated, this  was  not  by  the  pope  of  Eome,  but  by  the  pope  of 
Constantinople,  and  that  the  Eoman  patriarch  rebuked  his 
brother,  not  for  seizing  a  title  that  he  used  himself — 
though  he  hinted  that  it  had  been  offered  to  a  predecessor 
— but  for  adopting  one  that  no  bishop  had  a  right  to  hold, 
since  it  was  derogatory  to  his  fellow-bishops.  Gregory  here 
furnishes  the  opponents  of  the  papacy  with  admirable  argu- 
ments to  be  used  against  the  monstrous  claims  of  later 
occupants  of  his  own  See. 

Side  by  side  with  the  development  of  the  organisation 
of  the  Church  there  went  on  the  increasing  elaboration  of 
its  rites  and  Ceremonies.  In  the  conduct  of  worship  various 
functions  were  assigned  to  the  different  orders  of  the  clergy, 
according  to  their  places  in  the  ascending  scale  of  the  hier- 
archy. In  the  town  churches  the  bishops  were  at  the  head 
of  their  own  congregations  taking  the  leading  part  of  the 
solemn  functions,  and,  as  a  rule,  preaching  to  their  people. 
The  whole  ceremony  of  the  worship  centred  in  the  Eucharist. 
This  was  known  as  "  the  mystery  "  ^  'par  excellence.  It  is  a 
highly  significant  fact  that,  while  the  Eoman  Christian, 
■vndth   his  respect  for  law  and  authority,  called  the  chief 

'  Gieseler,  Eccl.  RisL,  2nd  Period,  1st  Div.  ch.  iii.  §  94,  note  72. 
^  rb  fj.v<rTripiov. 


142  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

office  of  his  religion  a  Sacrament,^  or  oath  of  allegiance,  his 
Greek  brother  used  a  word  that  was  already  familiar  to  the 
people  as  the  title  of  a  secret  ritual  witnessed  only  by  the 
initiated  and  carefully  guarded  from  the  intrusion  of 
the  vulgar.  Thus  the  word,  which  in  the  New  Testament 
always  means  a  truth  formerly  hidden,  but  now  through 
Christ  publicly  revealed,^  came  to  be  torn  entirely  away  from 
its  primitive  Christian  signification  and  used  altogether  in 
its  conventional  pagan  sense.  Meanwhile  there  was  a  grow- 
ing approximation  to  pagan  ritual  in  the  ceremonials  of  the 
Church  and  the  feelings  of  awe  with  which  they  were 
approached.  The  homely  love  feast,  at  which  rich  and  poor 
sit  down  to  a  common  meal  side  by  side,  while  they  com- 
memorate their  Lord's  death  by  eating  and  drinking  some 
of  the  bread  and  wine  or  milk  provided  for  it,  has  given 
place  to  a  solemn  function  of  miraculous  potency.  Baptism 
precedes  the  right  to  share  in  this  tremendous  mystery,  as 
an  ablution  is  necessary  for  those  about  to  be  initiated  in 
the  secret  rites  of  Demeter  at  Eleusis.  The  priest  at  the 
altar  is  regarded  as  performing  a  really  efficacious  act. 
Although  as  yet  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence  is  not  form- 
ally and  officially  pronounced  and  authorised  by  the  Church, 
it  is  now  very  generally  held  and  very  distinctly  taught. 

It  is  in  the  fourth  century  that  we  see  the  mystical 
character  of  the  body  of  Christ  so  treated  as  plainly  to 
involve  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  although  the 
notion  has  to  wait  long  for  official  definition  and  confirma- 
tion as  a  dogma  of  the  Church.  It  had  been  adumbrated 
in  still  more  ancient  times.  Even  as  early  as  the  first  half 
of  the  second  century  we  have  Ignatius  using  ecstatic 
language  about  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  that  faintly 
foreshadows  the  idea  which  is  destined  to  become  the 
central  factor  of  the  Catholic  faith  .^  The  Alexandrian 
teachers  Clement  and  Origen  are  satisfied  with  the 
symbolical  meaning  of  the  communion ;  and  so  is  Eusebius 
in  the  fourth  century,  as  wlien  he  refers  to  "  the  memory  "  * 

'  SaA^rameutum.  ^  e.g.  1  Cor.  xv.  51 ;  Col.  i.  26. 

•  e.g.  Ignatius,  Epist,  to  Rom.  vii.  *  ttjc  fivri/x-qv. 


ORGANISATION    AND    WORSHIP  143 

of  Christ's  sacrifice,  "  by  symbols  ^  both  of  His  body  and  of 
His  saving  blood."  2  On  the  other  hand,  Athanasius  shows 
signs  of  mystical  ideas  attached  to  the  elements,  especially 
as  the  sources  of  immortality  by  their  effects  on  our  bodies 
when  we  participate.  Thus  he  speaks  of  "  the  holy  altar, 
and  on  it  bread  of  heaven,  and  immortal,  and  that  giveth 
life  to  all  that  partake  of  it.  His  holy  and  all-holy  body  "  ;  ^ 
and  yet  in  another  place  he  says  that  the  very  object  of  the 
ascension  was  to  draw  men  away  from  the  thought  of  eating 
the  body.*  Evidently  we  are  here  at  a  transition  stage. 
Some  minds  go  further  than  others,  and  the  same  mind 
oscillates  between  the  symbolical  and  the  mystical  concep- 
tions. 

Basil  dwells  on  the  peculiar  sanctity  of  the  communion 
and  the  benefit  of  daily  participation  in  it ;  but  he  is  far 
from  ascribing  to  it  a  merely  magical  efficacy  irrespective 
of  intelligent  ideas.  Thus  he  says,  "  In  no  respect  does  he 
benefit  who  comes  to  the  communion  without  understanding 
the  word  according  to  which  the  participation  of  the  body 
and  the  blood  of  the  Lord  is  given.  But  he  that  partakes 
unworthily  is  condemned  ";5  and  again,  more  definitely, 
"  What  is  the  peculiar  benefit  of  those  that  eat  the  bread 
and  drink  the  cup  of  God?  To  keep  the  continual 
memory  «  of  Him  that  died  for  us  and  rose  again."  ^ 

But  now  when  we  turn  to  Basil's  brother,  Gregory  of 
Nyssa,  we  find  a  very  different  tone.  Gregory  was  an 
enthusiastic  Platonist  and  Origenist.  Here  however  he 
entirely  departs  from  the  simple  symbolism  of  the  Alex- 
andrian school.  We  are  sometimes  told  that  the  dogma  of 
transubstantiation  dates  from  the  Foui'th  Lateran  Council, 
as  late  as  the  thirteenth  century.  That  is  true  as  regards 
the  authoritative  enforcement  of  acceptance  of  it  on  the 
papal    Church,  although    Berengar    had   been    condemned 

^  5t4  ffvfi^6\uv.  2  Demonst.  Evang.  i. 

'  De  Nicieno  Con.  c.  Arium,  p.  125,  in  Hebert,  The  Lord's  Supper,  vol.  i. 
p.  154. 

*  Ibid.  p.  156.  »  Ibid.  p.  194.  "  ttjj'  ij.vriix.riv  ipvXdffffeiv  SiijveKTJ. 

'  Hebert,  Lord's  Supper,  vol.  i.  p.  193. 


144  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

more  tlian  a  century  earlier  (a.d.  1059)  for  denying  it. 
The  iiiediieval  scliooliueu  were  the  first  to  attempt  meta- 
physical explanations  of  tlie  doctrine.  But  the  essential 
idea  appears  full  blown  as  early  as  the  fourth  century,  and 
to  nobody  is  the  formulation  of  it  more  distinctly  attributable 
than  to  Gregory  of  Nyssa.  This  daring  and  original  Church 
Father  writes,  "  The  body  of  Christ  was  transmuted  ^  to  the 
flesh  of  God  by  the  indwelling  of  God  the  Word.  I  do 
well  then  in  believing  that  now  also  the  bread  of  God  the 
Word,  when  consecrated,  is  being  transmuted  ^  into  the  body 
of  God  the  Word."  ^  Together  with  this  notion  of  transub- 
stantiation  Gregory  also  has  the  idea  of  miraculous  effects 
produced  by  the  Divine  food  on  the  persons  of  the  recipients 
of  the  communion.  Thus  he  says,  "  For  as  a  little  leaven, 
as  the  apostle  says,  changes  and  assimilates  the  whole 
lump  to  itself ;  so  the  body  of  Christ  which  was  by  God 
put  to  death,  having  come  to  be  in  our  body,  transmutes 
and  transfers  it  all  into  its  own  character.  For  as  when 
the  destructive  agent  *  was  mingled  with  the  sound  (body), 
all  that  it  was  mingled  with  was  made  worthless  with  it,  so 
the  immortal  body  also,  having  come  to  be  in  him  that  has 
received  it,  transmuted  the  whole  also  into  its  own  nature. 
But  indeed  it  is  not  possible  for  anything  to  come  to  be  in 
the  body  except  it  be  well  mixed  with  the  bowels  by  being 
eaten  and  drunk.  Surely  then  it  is  requisite  to  receive,  in 
the  way  possible  to  our  nature,  the  power  of  the  Spirit  that 
is  to  quicken  us."^  We  can  scarcely  conceive  of  a  more 
grossly  materialistic  notion  of  the  use  of  the  Sacrament. 
But  we  must  observe  all  along  that  it  is  a  materialistic  end 
the  theologian  has  in  view.  The  body  of  Christ  is  so 
to  transmute  the  body  of  the  communicant  that  it  shall 
survive  the  shock  of  death  and  be  capable  of  resurrection. 
Thus  the  eating  and  drinking  of  the  Eucharistic  elements 
by  the  Christian  is  supposed  to  secure  for  his  body  what 
the  Egyptian  aimed  at  by  the  art  of  embalming,  what  the 

•  fieraTTOi-^dr).  ^  fieTaTroLeladai. 

•  Hebert,  p.  266.  *  i.e.  Sin,  as  the  context  shows. 

•  Hebert,  pp.  204,  205. 


ORGANISATION   AND  WORSHIP  145 

Pharaohs  would  make  doubly  sure  with  granite  sarcophagus 
and  massive  pyramid. 

What  Gregory  of  Nyssa  laboured  to  expound  and  en- 
force was  accepted  and  popularly  preached  by  Chrysostom, 
and  it  became  henceforth  the  normal  doctrine  of  the  Church. 
The  West  was  not  slow  to  adopt  the  same  ideas.  We  have 
movements  towards  them  in  the  writings  of  Hilary;  and 
Ambrose  tells  strange  things  of  the  magical  efficacy  of  the 
sacred  elements.  Still,  with  this  doctrine  which  meant  so 
much  for  the  Latin  Church  in  all  subsequent  ages,  as  with 
so  many  other  doctrines,  it  was  the  Greek  theologians  who 
first  gave  definite  expression  to  it.  Nevertheless,  belief  in 
transubstantiation  did  not  make  way  without  difficulties 
and  objections  in  some  quarters.  For  instance,  Palladius 
tells  of  an  old  monk  near  Scetis  who  much  distressed  two 
of  his  comrades  by  being  unable  to  accept  it.  They 
agreed  to  pray  for  a  week  that  the  doubter  might  be 
enlightened.  "  And  the  Lord  hearkened  to  both,"  says 
Palladius.  "  And  when  the  week  was  fulfilled  they  came 
on  the  Lord's  Day  to  the  church,  and  the  three  stood 
together  alone  on  one  seat,  and  the  old  man  was  in  the 
middle.  And  their  eyes  were  opened,  and  when  the  bread 
was  placed  on  the  holy  table,  it  appeared  to  the  three  only 
as  a  child,  and  when  the  presbyter  stretched  out  his  hand 
to  break  the  bread,  lo  !  an  angel  of  the  Lord  came  down 
from  heaven  with  a  sword  and  slew  the  child  as  a  sacrifice,^ 
and  emptied  its  blood  into  the  cup.  But  when  the  pres- 
byter brake  the  bread  into  small  portions,  the  angel  also 
began  to  cut  out  of  the  child  small  portions  ;  and  as  they 
drew  near  to  partake  of  the  holy  things  there  was  given, 
to  the  old  man  alone,  bleeding  flesh  ;  and  he  cried  out, 
sajdng,  '  I  believe.  Lord,  that  the  bread  is  Thy  body  and 
the  cup  Thy  blood.'  And  straightway  the  flesh  in  his  hand 
became  bread  according  to  the  mystery,  and  he  partook, 
giving  thanks  to  God.  And  the  old  men  say  to  him, 
'  God  knew  man's  nature,  that  it  cannot  eat  raw  flesh,  and 
on  this  account  transmuted  ^  the  body  into  bread  and  His 

^  Idvae.  ^  jj.€TeiroL7)ffe. 

lb 


146  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN   CHURCHES 

blood  into  wine  for  them  that  receive  in  faith.'  And  they 
gave  thanks  to  God  concerning  the  old  man  that  he  did 
not  lose  his  labours  ;  and  the  three  went  with  joy  into 
their  cells."  ^  Here  it  is  plain  cnougli  that  Berengarius, 
Wyclifte,  and  the  Keformers  had  been  anticipated  by  the 
old  sceptical  monk.  The  interesting  point  in  the  story  is 
that  his  doubts  were  dispelled  by  a  vision  in  answer  to 
prayer.  This  must  be  taken  in  conjunction  with  the  many 
other  monkish  marvels  with  which  Palladius  fills  his  pages. 
No  unprejudiced  person  can  read  the  story  without  being 
convinced  of  the  sincerity  and  genuine  devoutness  of  these 
three  simple-minded  monks.  It  carries  us  beyond  the 
plain  paths  of  history  to  obscure  regions  of  psychology, 
and  there  we  must  be  content  to  leave  it. 

»  Hebert,  vol.  i.  pp.  329,  330. 


CHAPTER    X 

EASTERN   MONASTICISM 

(a)  The  Book  of  Pa/radise,  by  Palladius,  etc.,  trans,  by  E.  A.  Wallis 

Budge  ;  Nicene  and  Post  -  Nicem  Fathers  ;  Socrates,  Hist. 
Eccl.  iv.  23  ;  Sozomen,  Hist.  Eccl.  i.  12-14 ;  iii.  14 ;  vi. 
28-34  ;  Evagiius,  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  33-35  ;  vi.  23,  24  ;  Sul- 
picius  Severus,  Dialog,  i. 

(b)  Zochler,  Kritische  Geschichte  der  Askek,  1863  ;  Texts  and  Studies, 

vi.,  Dom  Guthbert  Butler, "  The  Lausiac  History  of  Pal- 
ladius"; Harnack,  Monasticism,  1901;  Gihhon,  Decline  and 
Fall,  chap,  xxxvii. 

We  have  seen  that  in  the  region  of  thought  it  was  the 
Eastern  branch  of  the  Church  that  developed  theology  and 
settled  the  creed  of  Christendom.  Now  we  have  to 
observe  how  in  matters  of  practice  and  conduct  it  was 
this  same  Oriental  district  that  shaped  the  ideal  and  ad- 
vanced farthest  towards  its  attainment.  After  the  early 
days  of  joyous  liberty,  not  only  during  the  patristic  period, 
but  right  through  the  Middle  Ages,  asceticism  is  synonymous 
with  sanctity  for  the  bulk  of  the  Church,  both  Eastern  and 
Western.  Now  and  again  there  appears  a  mystic,  out  of 
all  relation  to  time  and  circumstance,  as  by  its  nature 
mysticism  always  is  ;  and  then  we  have  a  flash  of  hght  on 
the  spirituality  of  religion  realised  by  practical  love.  But 
in  the  main,  the  ideal  of  the  Christian  life  all  down  the  ages 
involved  on  one  side  renimciation  of  the  world,  castigation 
of  the  body,  a  crushing  down  of  natural  affections,  and  on 
the  other  side  intense,  whole  -  hearted  devotion,  stoical 
endurance,  unflinching  fidelity  to  creed  and  Church.  Only 
a  select  minority  seriously  pursued  this  difficult  aim. 

147 


148  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

The  fourth  century  is  the  great  age  of  the  rise  and 
development  of  monasticism  in  the  East ;  a  century  later 
we  see  it  rapidly  spreading  through  the  West.  This 
Western  movement  was  mainly  stimulated  by  Jerome,  who 
had  spent  years  in  his  cell  at  Bethlehem,  and  organised  by 
Cassian,  who  brought  to  Marseilles  ideas  he  had  gathered 
from  Basil's  arrangements  in  Asia  Minor.  Thus  both  of 
these  men  who  were  the  chief  influences  leading  to  the 
formation  of  early  Western  monasticism — the  one  for  its 
inspiration,  the  other  for  its  regulation — derived  their 
impulses  and  diioctions  from  the  East.  It  is  to  the  his- 
tory of  the  Eastern  Church,  therefore,  that  the  origin  and 
development  of  monasticism  belong. 

The  roots  of  monasticism  lie  far  back  in  the  past.  Its 
development  may  be  traced  through  the  following  stages : 
— (1)  General  Asceticism;  (2)  Specific  Asceticism,  (3) 
Anchoritism  ;  (4)  Coenobitism  ;  (5)  Eegulated  Monasticism. 
1.  A  spirit  of  asceticism  is  always  found  hovering 
round  the  idea  of  religion  even  where  it  has  not  pene- 
trated deeply  into  that  idea.  Prayer  and  fasting  go  often 
together.  While  our  Lord  never  commanded  the  latter 
practice  nor  even  commended  it,^  and  while  He  justified 
His  disciples  in  neglecting  the  custom,^  He  assumed  that 
it  would  be  practised  in  times  of  sorrow,*  and  He  also  gave 
directions  for  unostentatiousness  in  the  performance  of  it  by 
His  disciples,  implying  that,  as  Jews,  they  would  be  carrying 
on  their  Jewish  habits  in  this  matter.*  In  point  of  fact  it 
was  practised  in  apostolic  times,  though  especially  if  not 
exclusively  on  critical  occasions  of  exceptionally  earnest 
prayer.^  The  Palestinian  Christians  of  the  sub-apostolic 
age  were  warned  not  to  fast  on  the  Jews'  fasting-days — an 
admonition  implying  that  fasting  on  set  days  was  part  of 
their  regular  practice.^     In  later  times  it  was  always  pursued 

'The  word  "fasting,"  vriffTela,  in  Mark  ix.  29,  of  A.V.  and  T.R.,  is 
not  critically  authorised  ;  nor  does  it  appear  in  the  parallels  of  Matthew 
and  Luke. 

'  Mark  ii.  18,  19,  '  Ibid.,  ver.  20.  *  Matt.  vi.  16-18. 

»  e.g.  Acts  xiii.  3,  '  Diducht,  8. 


EASTERN    MONASTIOISM  149 

more  or  less  as  part  of  the  regular  Christian  life  among 
those  who  aimed  at  thoroughness. 

2.  During  the  second  century  asceticism  received  a 
powerful  impulse  from  sectional  bodies  of  Christians  in  pro- 
test against  the  increasing  secularisation  of  the  Church  after 
the  high  enthusiasm  of  primitive  times  had  cooled  down. 
This  was  especially  cultivated  by  the  Gnostics,  who  claimed 
that  in  practical  ethics  as  well  as  in  intellectual  concep- 
tions they  constituted  a  sort  of  spiritual  aristocracy  among 
their  fellow  Christians.  Marcion,  while  attempting  to 
follow  St.  Paul  in  his  gospel  of  grace,  appeared  as  a  moral 
reformer  in  a  quite  un-Pauline  asceticism,  although  his 
"  forbidding  marriage "  like  his  other  extravagances  was 
really  an  exaggerated  and  distorted  Paulinism.*  The 
Montanists  also  pressed  the  rigour  of  their  Puritanism  in 
the  same  direction.  On  the  Jewish  side  the  Encratites 
were  pronounced  ascetics.  Meanwhile,  as  usual,  the  main 
body  of  the  Church  took  a  middle  course ;  it  regarded 
asceticism  with  great  respect,  while  not  requiring  it. 
Virginity  is  repeatedly  honoured  in  the  Shepherd  of 
ffermas,^  and  Justin  Martyr  refers  to  celibate  old  men  and 
women  in  terms  of  admiration.^  By  the  third  century 
this  idea  is  much  advanced,  and  we  find  Cyprian  ranking 
celibacy  as  definitely  higher  than  marriage.^  By  the 
fourth  century  we  see  this  view  of  giving  exceptional 
honour  to  virginity  (while  not  demanding  it,  as  had  been 
done  by  the  Encratites,  Marcion,  Tatian,  and  other  Gnostics) 
definitely  registered  as  the  rule  of  the  Church.  In  the 
Apostolical  Constitution  vows  of  virginity  are  recognised 
though  not  demanded.^  Here  then  we  are  at  the  second 
stage  in  the  development  of  asceticism.  Certain  people 
elect  to  live  a  celibate  life  and  take  vows  accordingly. 
But  these  people  do  not  come  out  from  among  their 
fellows ;  they  mingle  with  general  society ;  they  remain  as 
members  of  the  family  in  their  own  homes. 

3.  The  next  stage  is  the  most  fertile  and  significant. 

1  e.g.  1  Cor.  vii.  1,  7,  8.  ^  e.g.  Sim.  9,  10.  ^  ^  jpol.  15. 

*  e.g.  de  HaUtu  Virg.  23.         ^  Const.  Apost.  iv.  14. 


1  50  THE    OREKK    AND    EASTERN   CHURCHES 

The  end  of  the  third  century  and  the  beginning  of  the 
fourth  saw  the  rise  of  the  anchorites.  These  men  forsook 
the  cities  and  fled  into  the  desert,  Uving  in  solitary  huts  or 
caves  or  even  out  in  the  open  air  exposed  to  all  weathers, 
roughly  and  thinly  clad,  feeding  meagrely  on  a  vegetarian 
diet"^  castigating  themselves  with  vigorous  self-discipline, 
vying  with  one  another  in  an  eager  rivalry  of  self- mortifica- 
tion, spending  their  time  in  prayer,  meditation,  wrestling 
with  evil  impulses,  performing  a  miuinuim  of  work,  if  any, 
lust  sufficient  for  a  bare  livelihood,  by  cultivating  a  little 
plot  of  ground,  basket-making,  or  other  manual  labour,  but 
when  otherwise  provided  for  doing  nothing  of  the  kind, 
often  developmg  amazing  extravagances  of  self-torture, 
sometimes  going  mad  in  their  wild,  cruel  life,  sometimes 
flinging  it  up  and  rushing  into  the  vortex  of  city  dissipation 
with  the  fury  of  a  fierce  reaction. 

The  rapid  rise  and  spread  of  this  movement,  which 
proved  to  be  so  immensely  influential  on  all  subsequent 
ages,  demands  an  explanation;  and  seeing  that  it  took 
place  at  a  particular  historical  moment,  we  must  look  for 
that  explanation  in  part  at  least  among  the  circumstances 
of  the  times.  The  main  root  of  monasticism,  as  of  all 
asceticism,  is  to  be  found  in  the  dichotomy  of  human  nature, 
the  discord  between  the  animal  part  and  the  soul  in  the 
constitution  of  man,  the  war  between  the  flesh  and  the 
spirit — a  conflict  realised  in  Indian  religions  as  keenly  as 
in  Christianity.  But  if  that  is  always  present  the  question 
faces  us,  Why  did  it  take  this  peculiar  form  of  monasticism 
especially  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century  a.d.  ? 
This  was  just  the  time  when  the  tempest  of  persecution 
which  had  swept  over  the  Christians  from  time  to  time 
passed  away,  and  the  sunshine  of  imperial  favour  bringing 
with  it  a  luxurious  summer  of  fashion  broke  out  over  the 
Church.  Formerly  the  better  life  had  been  braced  by  the 
buffeting  of  adverse  winds ;  now  it  was  in  danger  of  being 
relaxed  by  the  soft  zephyr  of  worldly  prosperity.  The 
adoption  of  Christianity  as  the  court  religion  turned  on  to 
it  the    stream   of  fashion.     The  world  crowded  into  the 


EASTERN    MONASTICISM  151 

Church ;  the  consequence  was  that  the  Cliurch  became 
rapidly  assimilated  to  the  world.  In  the  hard  times  the 
confessor  was  regarded  as  the  athlete.  His  endurance 
then  toughened  his  spiritual  muscles.  Now  the  occasion 
for  that  fine  athleticism  had  passed.  How  was  the  pure 
flame  of  devotion  to  be  kept  clear  and  bright  in  the 
stifling  atmosphere  of  a  world  nominally  Christian,  but 
really  almost  as  unspiritual  as  the  pagan  society  it  was  suc- 
ceeding ?  That  was  the  question  of  the  hour.  Earnest  men 
answered  it  in  a  way  that  we  may  think  selfish,  if  not 
cowardly.  Instead  of  remaining  in  the  world  as  its  leaven, 
they  fled  from  the  world  to  escape  its  contamination.  But 
the  mischief  of  their  mistake  has  been  exaggerated  where  it 
was  least  hurtful.  These  men  were  not  lost  to  society  as 
moral  influences.  It  became  customary  for  town  bishops 
and  others  to  take  their  holidays  in  a  retreat  with  an 
anchorite  for  a  spiritual  tonic,  as  modern  town  workers 
recruit  their  strength  by  mountaineering  or  some  other 
recreation  in  touch  with  nature.  The  fame  of  great 
anchorites  spread  through  the  Church  and  held  up  the 
ideal  of  the  simple  life  to  the  people  of  a  decadent  civilisa- 
tion. Some  were  preachers  whom  the  multitude  sought 
after  like  John  the  Baptist  in  the  wilderness.  Again  and 
again  a  monk  trained  by  the  discipline  of  solitude  was  called 
to  fill  some  high  post  in  the  Church,  and  then,  responding 
to  the  unwelcome  summons,  proved  himself  singularly 
effective  by  reason  of  his  detachment  from  secular  concerns. 

There  is  another  side ;  but  that  is  scarcely  where  the 
superficial  observer  might  look  for  it.  It  is  doubtful  if  the 
men  who  fled  from  the  world  could  have  influenced  it 
much  more  by  adopting  the  ordinary  life  of  citizens  than 
they  did  by  awakening  the  popular  imagination  and  firing 
the  popular  enthusiasm  from  their  lonely  retreats. 

The  real  mischief  of  monasticism  was  more  remote  and 
subtle,  but  not  less  hurtful  in  the  end.  The  empire  suffered 
by  the  withdrawal  of  so  many  of  the  strongest  men  from 
public  service.  Besides,  for  the  best  people  not  to  marry, 
and  for  the  continuation  of  the  population  to  be  left  to 


152  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

men  and  women  of  a  second  grade  morally,  must  have 
made  for  the  deterioration  of  the  race.  Yet  to  hold  up 
the  ascetic  ideal  as  the  loftiest  to  aim  at  tended  in  that 
direction.  It  is  evident  that  the  diminution  of  the  effective 
population  caused  by  the  enormous  exodus  of  celibates  into 
the  wilderness,  just  at  the  time  when  swarms  of  rapidly 
growing  Teutonic  peoples  were  gathering  on  the  confines  of 
the  empire  and  even  bursting  through  and  pouring  over 
it,  was  one  of  the  direct  causes  of  the  break-up  of  the 
empire.  The  later  emperors  saw  this  and  some  of  them 
regarded  the  monks  as  the  deadliest  enemies  of  the  State. 
Moreover,  even  considered  ecclesiastically,  mouasticism — 
especially  in  its  earlier  stages — acted  as  a  disintegrating 
influence.  In  his  desert  retreat  the  monk  was  well  out  of 
reach  of  the  bishop.  He  recited  his  psalms  and  conducted 
his  devotions  in  his  own  way,  and  so  shook  himself  free 
of  the  stiffening  rubric  that  was  followed  in  the  usual 
assemblies  for  public  worship.  He  was  a  Free  Churchman 
at  a  time  when  authority  was  strenuously  maintained  in 
the  Church  as  a  whole.  In  the  honour  that  was  spon- 
taneously given  him  by  an  admiring  public  he  became  a 
dangerous  rival  to  the  bishop.  Usually  he  was  a  fierce 
champion  of  orthodoxy ;  but  his  orthodoxy  tended  to  become 
narrow,  hard,  cruel.  Nevertheless,  in  spite  of  all  this,  it 
may  be  that  mouasticism  saved  the  situation  at  the  critical 
moment  when  the  Church  was  in  danger  of  being  confused 
with  the  world,  a  river  suddenly  let  loose  from  its  confining 
banks  to  spread  in  swamps  and  marshes  over  society  and 
finally  lose  itself  in  the  sands  of  secularity. 

The  specific  form  of  mouasticism  which  emerged  in 
separation  from  the  world,  and  in  a  measure  even  from 
the  Church  as  a  society,  first  appeared  in  Egypt.  It  is 
doubtful  whether  floating  traditions  of  Indian  customs  had 
anything  directly  to  do  with  its  rise,  although  there  are 
remarkable  coincidences  of  habit.  The  Therapeutse — if 
Mr.  Conybeare's  vindication  of  Philo's  description  of  them  ^ 
is  accepted  as  satisfactory — were  singularly  similar  fore- 
»  Dt  Vita  Gont.  6. 


EASTERN   MONASTTCISM  153 

runners  of  the  Christian  monks.  But  it  is  more  likely 
that  similar  causes  led  to  similar  effects  than  that  in  either 
case  there  was  direct  imitation.  Alexandria  was  a  centre 
of  highly  artificial  civilisation ;  the  desert  was  close  at 
hand  for  those  who  desired  to  escape  from  the  corrupting 
influences  of  city  life.  The  country  that  had  Therapeutas 
before  the  Church  appeared,  and  later  dervishes  under  the 
Mohammedan  regime,  might  naturally  invite  to  similar 
practices  in  Christian  times.  We  need  not  always  assign 
the  most  strenuous  motives  to  this  movement.  Doubtless 
there  have  always  been  men  and  women  drawn  to  solitude 
by  its  own  fascination,  like  Thoreau  in  his  Walden  ;  there 
have  always  been  lovers  of  nature  who  preferred  the 
country  to  the  town. 

Fresh  light  has  been  recently  thrown  on  the  lives  and 
manners  of  the  early  Christian  ascetics,  especially  in 
Egypt,  by  the  publication  of  The  Lausiac  History  of  Pal- 
ladius,  a  series  of  biographical  sketches  of  monks,  many 
of  whom  the  writer  had  known  personally,  with  some  of 
whom  he  had  shared  their  cells  for  a  time,  while  he  obtained 
information  about  others  from  reports  of  their  disciples. 
Palladius  was  born  in  Galatia  in  the  year  367  ;  he  visited 
the  Egyptian  ascetics  in  388,  spending  three  years  among 
them.  All  this  was  in  his  youth.  Subsequently  he  visited 
ascetics  in  other  parts,  and  he  wrote  his  book  in  the 
year  420.i 

The  earliest  fugitives  to  the  Egyptian  desert  simply 
retired  before  persecution  without  any  ascetic  design.^ 
The  first  of  the  actual  hermits  is  said  to  have  been 
Paul,   who  lived  in  a  cave  near   the  Eed  Sea   and   was 

^  It  was  dedicated  to  Lausus,  a  chamberlain  at  the  court  of  Theodosius  ii. 
Hence  the  name  by  which  it  is  now  known.  Its  amazing  stories  have  led  to 
its  being  regarded  by  some — especially  Weingarten  and  Lucius — as  a  pure 
fabrication.  But  Dom  Cuthbert  Butler  has  vindicated  its  genuineness.  The 
whole  question  of  monkish  marvels  must  be  determined  with  regard  to  many 
considerations  of  hypnotism,  telepathy,  the  sub-conscious  ego,  inaccuracy  of 
observation,  curious  ideas  as  to  the  obligation  of  truth.  We  cannot  doubt 
the  genuineness  of  the  life  of  St.  Martin  of  Tours  by  Sulpicius  Severos ;  yet 
that  book  offers  us  miracles  galore. 

*  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  vi.  42. 


154  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

visited  a  short  time  before  his  death  by  St.  Anthony.* 
.roronie  calls  him  "the  founder  of  the  monastic  life";^ 
hut  he  is  rather  a  shadowy  personality,  altliough  we  really 
have  no  reason  to  deny  his  existence.  Much  more  im- 
jiortant  is  the  great  Anthony  himself.  Keen  controversy 
has  raged  as  to  tlie  genuineness  of  the  famous  life  of 
Anthony  ascribed  to  Athanasius.  It  has  been  urged  that 
the  extravagances,  the  puerilities,  the  absurd  miracles  of 
this  story  are  utterly  unworthy  of  the  champion  of  the 
Nicene  faith,  and  could  not  have  issued  from  the  pen  that 
wrote  the  well-known  treatises  contained  in  his  acknow- 
ledged works.  But  now  we  have  equally  extravagant 
and  seemingly  impossible  things  said  of  other  anchorites  by 
Palladius,  and  he  vouches  for  some  of  his  most  marvellous 
stories  as  a  personal  friend  who  in  some  cases  had  shared 
for  months  the  cells  of  the  men  concerning  whom  he 
narrates  them.'  Athanasius  calls  Anthony  "  the  founder 
of  asceticism."  There  were  anchorites  when  he  took  up  a 
similar  life,  but  living  in  huts  *  which  they  had  built  them- 
selves near  the  towns.  Born  in  the  year  250,  he  received 
his  call  at  the  age  of  eighteen  in  the  words  of  Christ  to 
the  young-  ruler  which  he  once  heard  in  church.  He  spent 
fifteen  years  in  a  hut  near  his  native  village ;  after  which 
he  shut  himself  up  in  one  of  those  rock  tombs  that  are  so 
abundant  in  Egypt.^  After  this  he  lived  in  close  seclusion 
in  a  ruined  castle,  and  blocked  up  the  entrance  with  a 
huge  stone.  His  final  place  of  abode  was  at  a  still  more 
remote  spot  by  the  Dead  Sea,  where  he  died  at  the  age  of 
105,  ministered  to  in  his  extreme  old  age  by  his  faithful 

'  Jerome,  Vita  Pauli ;  Sozomen,  Hist.  Eccl.  i.  13. 

^  Audor  vitce  monasticte  ;  princeps  vitm  monasticce. 

'  The  genuineness  of  Athanasius'  Vita  Antonii  is  defended  byPreuschen, 
Stiilcken,  Bardenhewer,  HoU,  Volter,  Leipoldt,  Griitzmacher,  Dom  Butler, 
Text  and  Stvdies,  vol.  vi.  No.  2 ;  Texte  v.  Unterschungen,  N.  F.  iv. 
4,  79. 

*  Called  novaoT-qpla.. 

*  The  present  writer  was  invited  by  a  friend  who  was  conducting  ex- 
ploration work  in  Egypt  to  "spend  a  night  with  him  in  his  tomb  ;  there 
would  be  pUnty  of  sand."  Such  a  retreat  is  not  altogether  devoid  of 
comfort,  being  warm  at  night  and  cool  during  the  day. 


EASTERN    MONASTICISM  155 

disciples  Amathas  and  Macarius.  During  this  long  life 
of  asceticism  Anthony  had  won  a  fame  which  made  his 
example  a  model  for  multitudes  who  now  entered  on  the 
life  of  anchorites.  At  times  of  critical  importance  he 
would  leave  his  retreat  and  appear  in  the  city  of  Alex- 
andria to  preach  to  the  people  with  immense  effect,  being 
received  as  a  most  venerated  counsellor.  He  practised  the 
exorcism  of  his  times,  fully  believing  in  it.  In  the  Arian 
controversy  he  was  a  staunch  supporter  of  the  Nicene 
position,  and  he  did  Athanasius  good  service  by  bringing 
the  weight  of  his  saintly  reputation  to  bear  on  that  side 
of  the  question.  Altogether  he  is  described  as  a  man 
gifted  with  brain  power  and  able  to  persuade  men  with 
forcible  arguments.  When  dying  he  bequeathed  his  sheep- 
skin to  Athanasius,  who  received  it  as  the  most  precious 
legacy. 

Women  as  well  as  men  were  caught  by  the  fascination 
of  the  ascetic  life.  In  some  cases  they  had  personal 
reasons  for  adopting  it.  Thus  Palladius  tells  the  story 
of  the  maiden  Alexandria,  who  shut  herself  up  for  ten 
years  in  such  complete  seclusion  that  even  her  attendant 
could  not  see  her  face.  She  told  this  attendant  that  she 
was  never  idle,  for  she  spent  her  time  in  prayer,  reciting 
the  psalms,  and  weaving  linen.  Asked  why  she  chose  to 
live  in  this  way,  she  said  that  it  was  in  order  to  escape 
from  the  importunities  of  a  lover.  Among  the  most 
curious  anchorites  were  the  Stylites,  men  who  Hved  on  the 
summits  of  pillars.  The  practice  originated  in  the  fifth 
century  with  Simeon,  who  was  born  at  Sisan,  a  village  on 
the  borders  of  Syria  and  Cilicia.  He  went  through  a  suc- 
cession of  self-imposed  austerities,  living  for  a  summer 
buried  up  to  his  neck  in  a  garden ;  then  in  a  dark  cave 
with  a  spiked  girdle  round  his  waist ;  later  on  in  a  cell  near 
Antioch  where  a  number  of  admirers  gathered  about  him. 
In  the  year  423  he  built  a  low  pillar,  lived  on  that  for  a 
time,  then  on  a  higher  pillar,  and  so  on  till  he  was  raised 
40  cubits  above  the  earth,  either  in  a  hut,  or,  as  seems 
more  probable,  merely   on   a   railed  platform.     There  he 


156  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

npent  thirty  years — the  wouder  of  tlie  world.  Crowds  of 
Arabians  aud  Armenians,  and  even  pilgrims  from  as  far  as 
Spain  and  Britain,  flocked  thitlier  to  see  the  holy  man  and 
obtain  his  blessing.  Simeon  preached  to  them  from  his 
lofty  pulpit,  and  thus  became  one  of  the  most  potent 
religious  influences  of  his  age.  Others  followed  his 
example,  especially  in  Syria  aud  Greece.  The  eccentricity 
was  not  adopted  in  Egypt  and  it  was  disapproved  of  in 
the  Western  Church. 

4.  Meanwhile  the  fourth  stage  of  the  ascetic  life  was 
well  advanced.  This  is  known  as  the  coenobite.  It  is  the 
common  life,  the  life  of  a  community.  The  contrast  with 
the  hermit  life  is  very  marked.  The  ancient  anchorite 
sought  absolute  solitude,  chose  his  own  course,  lived  as  he 
thought  fit  a  very  self-contained  life.  The  monk  in  a 
convent  was  to  sink  self  in  the  common  life,  pursue  no 
self-willed  aims,  obey  the  authority  under  which  he  was 
put.  Of  the  three  monastic  vows  that  dominated  monas- 
ticism  throughout  the  Middle  Ages — poverty,  chastity, 
obedience — the  first  two  only  were  observed  by  the  primi- 
tive anchorites ;  the  third  came  in  with  the  coenobite  life. 
A  movement  in  this  direction  was  originated  by  the 
gathering  of  admiring  disciples  round  the  cell  of  some 
famous  anchorite.  When  these  men  had  their  own  cells 
they  were  set  well  apart  out  of  earshot  of  one  another. 
Still,  here  we  see  an  approach  to  the  idea  of  a  group- 
ing of  monks  together.  Sometimes  a  group  of  hermits 
would  meet  for  the  communion  in  an  ordinary  church 
if  such  a  place  happened  to  be  within  reach.  But  the 
definite  founding  of  the  coenobite  system  is  ascribed  to 
Pachomius,  who  established  his  first  monastery  at  Tabenniti 
near  Denderah,  about  the  year  305.  The  idea  spread 
rapidly,  and  by  the  time  of  the  death  of  Pachomius  in  or 
near  the  year  345  there  were  eight  monasteries  and 
several  hundreds  of  monks.  It  was  a  fully  organised 
system  from  the  first,  with  a  superior,  a  system  of  visita- 
tion, and  general  chapters.  A  monastery  consisted  of 
a  number  of  houses  each  containing  some  thirty  or  forty 


EASTERN    MONASTICISM  157 

monks.  The  rules  were  rigorous  on  the  principles  of  a 
military  system.  Still  there  was  room  for  variations  of 
habit.  Describing  the  monastery  at  Panopolis  (AJchmlm), 
Palladius  tells  us  that  the  tables  were  laid  and  that  a 
meal  was  prepared  at  midday  and  at  every  successive 
hour  till  late  in  the  evening,  to  suit  the  convenience  of 
monks  who  fasted  up  to  various  times  in  the  day.  Yet 
some,  he  says,  ate  only  every  second  day,  some  only  every 
third  day,  some  only  every  fifth  day. 

Palladius  is  full  of  strange  stories  of  the  Egyptian 
anchorites  and  monks,  some  of  them  too  fantastic  to  be 
better  than  childish  fables,  yet  most  of  them  significant 
of  some  trait  in  the  ascetic  life.  The  fidelity  with  which 
he  records  the  faults  he  discovered  in  his  visits  to  the 
desert  retreats  must  be  set  down  to  his  credit  for  good 
faith.  Macarius  punished  himself  for  killing  a  gnat  in  a 
moment  of  irritation  by  retiring  to  the  Scetic  marshes, 
and  there  spending  six  months  in  a  state  of  nudity  among 
the  insects,  till  on  his  return  he  was  only  recognised  by 
his  voice,  his  skin  being  like  an  elephant's  hide.  To  Valens 
of  Palestine  the  devil  once  came  in  the  appearance  of 
Christ,  with  such  flattery  of  speech  that  the  poor  man's 
head  was  turned,  and  he  told  his  brethren  the  next  day  that 
he  had  no  need  to  partake  of  the  communion.  "  For,"  said 
he,  "  I  have  seen  Christ  Himself."  He  was  put  in  irons 
for  a  twelvemonth,  and  thus  effectually  humbled  and  cured 
of  his  delusion — if  such  it  was ;  but  Sir  Walter  Scott's 
famous  story  of  Colonel  Gardiner  reminds  us  that  the 
incident  is  capable  of  a  very  different  interpretation. 
Another  story  of  a  similar  character  does  not  look  quite 
so  innocent.  One  night,  as  Palladius  tells  us,  the  devil 
came  to  Eucarpus,  who  had  spent  fifteen  years  in  the 
ascetic  life,  speaking  to  nobody,  and  said,  "  I  am  Christ." 
The  monk  believed,  and  fell  down  and  worshipped  his 
vision.  The  intoxication  of  this  scene  encouraged  the 
poor  man  to  insubordination,  so  that  he  called  Macarius 
*  a  painted  image  "  and  Evagrius  "  a  mere  hewer  of  words." 
He  too  was  put  in  irons  for  a  year,  after  which  he  only 


158  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

lived  thirteen  mouths,  ministering  to  the  sick  and  washing 
the  feet  of  strangers.  Stephen  lost  all  desire  for  meat 
and  treated  with  contempt  those  who  when  out  of  health 
took  milk  or  cooked  flesh.  His  pride  had  a  terrible  fall. 
Resenting  the  authority  of  Macarius,  he  ran  ofiP  to  Alex- 
andria, and  there  plunged  into  gluttony,  drunkenness,  and 
debauchery. 

5.  The  last  stage  in  the  development  of  Eastern  monas- 

ticism  is  due  to  the  statesmanlike  wisdom  and  energy  of 

the  great  Basil,  who  may  be  regarded  as  the  Benedict  of 

the  Oriental  Church.     The  arrangements  made  by  Pach- 

omius  applied  only  to  his  own  monks.      By  far  the  larger 

number    of    the    ascetics   were    living   according    to  their 

private   lights,   and    even  where    there   were    monasteries 

these  were   very   variously  administered.      Basil   travelled 

widely,  visiting  many  of  these  institutions  and  discovering 

their  objectionable  features.     Two  practices  in  particular 

he  lield  to  be  very  mischievous.     The  first  was  the  hermit 

habit.      Solitude   he  thought  dangerous  to   humility   and 

charity.     "  Whose  feet  wilt  thou  wash  ?  "  he  asks  ;  "  whom 

wilt  thou  serve  ?  bow  canst  thou   be  last  of  all — if  thou 

art    alone  ? "       The    second   of    these    evils   was  idleness. 

Basil's  rule  insists  on  industry.     At  the  same  time  he  puts 

restraint  on  the  wild  extravagances  of  asceticism.     A  man 

of  ascetic  habits  himself — with  his  one  daily  meal  of  beans 

— he  writes,   "  If  fasting  hinders  you  from  labour,  it  is 

better    to    eat    like    the    workman    of    Christ    that    you 

are."     The  monk  can  possess  no  private  property,  meet  no 

woman,  drink  no  wine,  read  only  canonical  books.      The 

true  ascetic  uses  the  dry  and  least   nourishing   food  and 

eats  but  once  a  day.^     There  is  to  be  reading  during  the 

meals.2      Basil's  pride  and    masterfulness    should   not  be 

allowed  to   blind  us   to   his  careful,  considerate  kindness. 

He  studied  the  welfare  of  the  monks,  relaxed  their  more 

severe  exercises,  but  braced  them  for  regular,  wholesome 

work.      Lofty-minded   himself,  he  seeks  to   kindle  a  fine 

flame    of    enthusiasm     in     others.       Thus     he     exclaims, 

*  CoTist.  Monast.  cap.  vL  '  Reg.  href,  tract.  Interr.  186. 


EASTERN    MONASTICISM  159 

"  Athletes,  workmen  of  Jesus  Christ,  you  have  engaged 
yourselves  to  fight  for  Him  all  the  day,  to  bear  all  its 
heat.  Seek  not  repose  before  the  end ;  wait  for  the 
evening,  that  is  to  say,  the  end  of  life,  the  hour  at  which 
the  householder  shall  come  to  reckon  with  you  and  pay 
your  wages." 


DIYTRTON   II 

THE  MOHAMMEDAN  PERIOD 


CHAPTER    I 
THE  RISE  AND  SPREAD  OF  MOHAMMEDANISM 

(a)  Sale's  Koran.  Original  authorities;  traditions  collected  by 
Zobri,  Musa  ibn  Ochba  and  Abn  Masbar  ;  followed  l)y  Ibn 
iBbjB,  Ibn  Hisbam,  Wakidy,  Tabari,  Ibn  Atbir,  wbose  works 
are  extant  more  or  li^ss  in  their  original  state  ;  Michael  the 
Syrian  (edit,  and  French  trans,  by  Chabot,  1899-1907). 

(6)  Muir,  Life  of  Mahomet,  3rd  ed.  1894;  The  Caliphate,  Its  Rise, 
Decline,  and  Fall,  3rd  ed.  1898;  R.  Bosworth  Smith, 
Lectures  on  Mohammedanism,  2nd  ed,  1876  ;  Butler,  Arab 
Conquest  of  Egypt,  1902;  Sprenger,  Das  Lehen  und  die 
Lehre  Mohammad,  1869  ;  Weil,  Einleitung  in  den  Koran, 
2nd  ed.  1878, 

Our  familiar  Western  divison  of  Church  History  into  three 
periods — the  Patristic,  the  Mediaeval,  and  the  Modern — 
does  not  rightly  apply  to  the  Eastern  half  of  Christendom. 
There  were  no  Middle  Ages  in  the  Oriental  Churches, 
for  the  simple  reason  that  there  was  no  Renaissance  or 
Reformation  to  inaugurate  a  third  period  from  which  those 
ages  could  be  sharply  divided — no  terminns  ad  quern. 
Nevertheless,  other  events  roughly  mark  off  a  corresponding 
block  of  time.  In  the  West  the  chief  cause  of  the  immense 
cliange  that  broke  the  classic  traditions  of  the  past  and 
introduced  meditevalisni  was  the  Teutonic  flood  of  colonisa- 
tion, before  which  half  the  Roman  Empire  crumbled  away, 
and  which  ultimately  issued  in  the  shaping  of  the  nations 

160 


THE    RISE    AND    SPREAD    OF    MOHAMMEDANISM       161 

of  Europe.  About  the  same  time  the  tempest  of  Moham- 
medanism arose  in  Arabia  to  sweep  over  some  of  the 
fairest  provinces  of  the  Eastern  branch  of  the  empire, 
tearing  them  off  limb  by  limb,  and  leaving  only  a  truncated 
torso  to  represent  the  dominion  of  the  Ctesars. 

This  happened  in  the  seventh  century,  just  after  the 
last  of  the  Latin  Fathers,  Gregory,  had  laid  the  foundations 
of  mediaeval  theology.  But  the  two  invasions  —  the 
Teutonic  in  the  West  and  the  Arabian  in  the  East — were 
very  different  in  character.  They  agreed  in  one  lamentable 
feature.  In  both  cases  a  more  barbarous  race  came  to 
wreck  and  destroy  an  ancient  civilisation.  They  also 
agreed  in  one  redeeming  characteristic.  Each,  appearing 
as  the  besom  of  destruction,  was  really  an  instrument  of 
judgment  on  an  age  already  perishing  in  its  own  corruption. 
While  the  Germans  brought  physical  and  moral  health 
from  their  remote  forests  to  the  effete  city-life  of  Italy, 
the  Arabs  came  with  the  simplicity  of  the  desert  to 
castigate  the  effeminacy  of  Oriental  luxury — until  in  a 
very  short  time  they  themselves  fell  victims  to  the  same 
fatal  narcotic.  But  there  was  this  radical  difference 
between  the  two  immigrations.  The  Goths  were  Christians, 
and  as  they  settled  down  among  the  conquered  peoples, 
intermingling  with  them,  if  the  unfortunate  accident  of 
their  Arianism  had  not  stood  in  the  way  they  would  have 
fraternised  from  the  first  with  the  churches  of  their  adopted 
land.  But  the  Arabs  appeared  as  missionaries  of  a  new 
religion,  who  held  themselves  aloof  from  the  peoples  they 
subdued  in  proud  scorn — except  in  the  one  significant 
fact,  that  they  wedded  the  wives  and  daughters  of  their 
victims.  Liberal  and  lenient  at  first  towards  all  who 
submitted  to  their  yoke,  they  soon  made  it  apparent 
that  Jews  and  especially  Christians  were  only  allowed  to 
practise  the  rites  of  their  faiths  imder  sufferance,  and  that 
with  increasingly  galling  restrictions.  From  the  seventh 
century  onwards  right  down  to  our  own  day  the  chief 
factor  of  Church  poUtics  in  the  East  has  been  its  relation 
to  Mohammedanism. 

IX 


1G2  THE   GREEK  AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Mohamined  was  born  at  the  city  of  Mecca  in  the 
year  570;  but  he  was  brought  up  in  the  tents  of  the 
Bedouins,  from  wlioni  he  learnt  simple  manners  and  among 
wbom  he  maintained  a  primitive  purity  of  life.  He  was 
forty  years  of  age  before  he  was  conscious  of  the  first 
impulse  to  his  mission.  Then  the  great  thought  of  One 
God,  Creator  and  Euler  of  All,  dawned  upon  his  mind  as 
ii  revelation.  Mohammedanism  has  been  traced  to  Jewish 
and  Christian  sources  combined  with  Arabian  traditions. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  both  the  rival  Monotheistic 
faiths  indirectly  affected  the  prophet.  We  meet  with 
references  to  them  in  the  Koran;  and  Bible  characters 
and  Hebrew  legends  have  had  a  considerable  part  in  its 
composition.  But  while  we  may  recognise  these  materials 
as  fuel  for  the  sacrifice,  we  cannot  discover  in  them  the 
fire.  It  was  the  personality  of  Mohammed,  his  vision  of 
truth  gained  through  deep  brooding  and  strugghng  of  soul, 
that  constituted  him  the  founder  of  Islam.  There  can 
be  no  question  of  his  sincerity  at  the  beginning  of  his 
career,  nor  of  the  purity  of  his  original  motives;  it  is 
equally  clear  that  he  deteriorated  in  his  later  days,  became 
at  least  a  self -deceiver,  fell  into  self-indulgent  vices,  and 
justified  them  with  supposed  visions  and  voices  from 
heaven.  The  burden  of  his  message  was  a  stern  protest 
against  the  prevalent  idolatry  of  Arabia,  and  his  enunciation 
of  the  unity,  the  spirituality,  the  supremacy  of  God  as 
at  once  almighty  and  most  merciful.  The  Mussulman 
cry  —  "  Allah  Akbar  !  ■ —  God  is  Great ! "  —  is  the  root 
principle  of  Mohammedanism.  The  sublime  truth  burst 
on  the  desert  like  a  revelation.  Undoubtedly  it  intro- 
duced a  purer  faith  than  the  gross  heathenism  that  it 
supplanted. 

This  clear,  vigorous  new  teaching  braced  the  minds  of 
its  adherents  with  belief  in  an  inflexible  fixture  of  events 
which  was  not  mere  fatalism,  as  is  commonly  asserted, 
but  the  idea  of  a  personal  purpose  in  the  dominant  will 
of  the  merciful  Allah.  Further,  with  this  creed  was 
conjoined  the  doctrine  of  the  equality  of  all  male  believers, 


THE    RISE    AND    SPREAD    OF    MOHAMMEDANISM       163 

involving  the  duty  of  brotherly-kindness.  Then  the  pro- 
hibition of  wine  was  one  sign  that  Mohammed  aimed  at 
moral  vigour  and  simplicity  of  life.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  most  fatal  defect  of  Mohammedanism  is  its  permission 
of  polygamy  and  concubinage,  which  together  with  the 
veil  involves  the  degradation  of  woman  and  her  separation 
from  the  duties  and  interests  of  the  world.  This,  as  Sir 
William  Muir  points  out,  is  more  hurtful  to  men  than  to 
women.  Lastly,  under  the  rule  of  Islam,  slavery  also  is 
sanctioned  and  largely  practised. 

The  tolerance  of  the  early  caliphs  has  been  frequently 
applauded.  But  in  its  essential  nature  the  Mussulman 
faith  is  dogmatic  and  intolerant.  The  Koran,  which  its 
founder  claimed  to  have  received  by  dictation  from  heaven, 
is  to  be  taken  as  infallible.  Thus  thought  is  paralysed 
and  all  religions  but  that  of  Islam  are  treated  with  contempt. 
As  a  consequence,  cruelty  to  the  unbeliever  and  especially 
the  apostate — that  is  to  say,  the  convert  to  Christianity — 
has  been  frequently  permitted,  and  that  with  ruthless 
fanaticism. 

Mohammed  must  have  had  real  faith  in  his  message 
to  bear  him  through  the  early  period  of  discouragement 
when  his  converts  were  but  few.  At  that  time  they 
could  only  be  won  by  persuasion  in  face  of  popular  dis- 
favour, and  at  length  it  was  necessary  for  the  prophet  to 
escape  from  Mecca,  a  hunted  fugitive.  The  Hegira — 
the  flight  to  Medina — took  place  in  the  year  622,  which 
afterwards  became  the  starting  -  point  of  the  Moham- 
medan era. 

In  the  second  stage  of  his  enterprise  Mohammed 
sanctioned  the  sword  for  the  rooting  out  of  idolatry  and 
the  spread  of  the  faith.  By  thus  following  up  preaching 
with  force,  he  had  secured  most  of  Arabia  at  the  time 
of  his  death  (a.d.  632).  But  there  is  no  proof  that  he  had 
ever  contemplated  crossing  the  borders  of  his  own  land. 
With  Mohammed  Islam  was  the  religion  of  the  Arab. 

While  the  death  of  the  prophet  produced  consternation 
among  his  followers,  it  was  the  occasion  of  insurrection  on 


164  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN   CHURCHES 

the  part  of  the  conquered  tribes  of  the  desert.  The  crisis 
was  acute ;  but  among  the  "  companions  "  were  men  equal 
to  its  demands.  When  Omar  was  passionately  haranguing 
the  people  who  crowded  the  mosque  at  Medina,  the  calm 
Abu  Bekr  put  him  aside  with  the  memorable  words : 
"  Whoso  worshippeth  Mohammed  let  him  know  that 
Mohammed  is  dead ;  but  whoso  worshippeth  God,  let 
him  know  that  God  liveth  and  dieth  not."  Abu  Bekr, 
then  sixty  years  of  age,  was  elected  first  caliph — i.e.  successor 
to  the  prophet.  He  had  a  heavy  task  before  him  in  the 
subjugation  of  the  apostate  tribes,  but  the  work  was 
triumphantly  accomplished  by  his  great  general  Khalid. 
In  the  conduct  of  this  war  and  the  behaviour  of  its  leader 
we  may  discover  the  secret  of  the  success  of  Islam  and  its 
marvellous  career  during  the  next  few  years.  Everywhere 
the  terms  were  submission  or  the  sword.  While  idolatry 
was  to  be  rooted  out  completely,  for  Jews  and  Christians 
submission  might  take  the  form  of  tribute.  But  all  Arabs 
who  accepted  Islam  were  at  once  enrolled  in  the  army  and 
endowed  with  its  privileges.  Under  the  early  caliphs 
there  was  very  little  for  the  civil  administrators  to  do 
beyond  collecting  and  distributing  tribute  and  booty. 
These  caliphs  were  anxious  to  prevent  their  people  building 
houses  or  engaging  in  agriculture  lest  the  settled  life 
should  chill  their  martial  ardour.  Thus  all  Islam  was 
an  armed  camp,  and  the  chief  service  of  religion  was  to 
fight  for  it.  In  the  conduct  of  war  all  who  resisted  were 
slaughtered,  and  their  property,  their  wives,  and  their 
daughters  confiscated.  One-fifth  of  the  booty  was  reserved 
for  the  treasury,  but  immediately  distributed  among  the 
faithful  after  the  small  expenses  of  administration  were 
paid;  the  remaining  four-fifths  were  divided  in  equal 
proportions  among  the  men  who  had  engaged  in  the  fight. 
The  same  was  done  with  the  women  captives.  It  was 
accounted  a  scandal  that  Khalid  once  married  the  wife 
of  an  opposing  leader  on  the  battlefield,  and  the  caliph 
rebuked  him  for  his  indecent  haste.  Nevertheless  he 
retained  his  post  and  acted  very  similarly  another  time. 


THE    RISE    AND    SPREAD    OF    MOHAMMEDANISM       165 

If  an  Arab  fell  while  fighting  for  Islam,  he  was  to  expect 
two  bright-eyed  damsels  to  descend  from  heaven,  wipe  the 
dust  and  sweat  from  his  face,  and  carry  him  away  to  a 
voluptuous  paradise.  Thus  the  reward  of  fighting  was  in 
any  case  a  harem — if  the  warrior  survived,  a  harem  on 
earth ;  if  he  died,  a  harem  in  paradise.  This  was  the 
precise  opposite  of  the  Christian  ideal  preached  by  the 
priests  and  professed  by  the  monks.  Celibacy  with 
chastisement  of  the  flesh  was  the  stern  Church  conception 
of  the  saint ;  gross  sensuality  in  multiple  marriage  was  held 
out  as  the  bait  for  the  Mohammedan  warrior.  A  more  sharp 
antithesis  between  two  ideals  of  life  was  never  conceived. 

Nevertheless  this  is  only  one  side  of  the  shield.  We 
should  do  deep  injustice  to  Islam  and  at  the  same  time 
flatter  Christendom  hypocritically  if  we  refused  to  sternly 
face  the  other  side.  The  Mohammedan  sincerely  believed 
that  he  was  an  instrument  in  the  hand  of  Allah ;  he  was 
sure  that  it  was  Allah's  will  for  the  infidel  to  be  smitten 
down  on  refusing  submission,  and  for  the  faith  of  the 
prophet  to  be  maintained  and  spread  at  the  point  of  the 
sword.  Thus  he  was  fired  with  the  zeal  of  the  missionary. 
Under  these  circumstances  we  can  only  admire  the  com- 
parative tolerance  of  the  early  caliphs  and  their  readiness 
to  protect  Jews  and  Christians  on  the  simple  condition  of 
the  payment  of  tribute.  Now  look  at  the  state  of  the 
Christian  world  at  this  crisis.  The  Church  was  torn  with 
internal  factions.  The  strength  of  its  best  minds  was  given 
to  the  discussion  of  the  most  difficult  points  of  dogma. 
On  account  of  heresy  in  regard  to  these  remote  abstractions 
whole  provinces  were  driven  by  persecution  to  disaffection. 
At  the  same  time  the  morals  of  the  empire  were  abominably 
corrupt.  The  saintly  ideal  of  the  monks — not  always 
realised  by  its  own  professors — left  the  mass  of  the  people, 
who  frankly  confessed  that  they  could  not  attain  to  it,  all 
the  more  ready  to  abandon  any  strenuous  endeavours  after 
virtue.  City  life  was  sinking  into  the  slough  of  luxurious 
self-indulgence ;  and  the  government  was  feeble  and  only 
spasmodically  energetic  by  fits  and  starts. 


166  THK   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Although  after  the  death  of  the  prophet  Islam  had  first 
to  figlit  for  its  very  existence,  and  although  it  was  only 
by  desperate  courage  and  energy  that  the  revolting  tribes 
were  reduced  to  sullen  submission,  Mohammedanism  had 
this  singular  power  that  it  could  cast  a  spell  over  its 
iL'luctant  converts  and  convert  them  into  fervent  disciples. 
Moreover,  when  it  spread  beyond  the  borders  of  Arabia 
a  new  inducement  was  added  to  encourage  loyalty.  The 
Arabs  became  an  aristocratic  order  with  distinctive  privi- 
leges, and  altliough  the  equal  brotherhood  of  all  believers 
was  preached  in  the  Koran  it  was  never  practised  as  be- 
tween the  army  from  Arabia  and  the  Syrians,  Persians, 
Copts,  in  other  countries.  Apparently  Mohammed  had  not 
contemplated  its  extension  to  alien  races.  Therefore  the 
brotherhood  of  Islam  was  really  the  union  of  the  Bedouin  of 
the  desert  in  equality  of  privilege  and  community  of  mutual 
service.  The  rule  that  required  all  the  children  of  the 
faithful,  whether  from  wives  or  concubines,  to  be  brought 
up  as  Mohammedans  with  the  full  status  of  their  fathers, 
led  to  the  rapid  growth  of  the  army  of  Islam  and  its  con- 
tinual infusion  with  the  renewing  vigour  of  fresh  blood. 
So  this  conquering  host  poured  out  spreading  death  and 
terror,  always  gathering  spoil,  and  often  exacting  tribute. 

When  it  looked  beyond  the  borders  of  Arabia  Moham- 
medanism found  itself  confronted  by  two  great  empires — 
Persia  in  the  East  and  Rome  in  the  North  and  West. 
United  these  two  powers  could  easily  have  nipped  the  new 
terror  in  the  bud.  Even  separately  under  normal  circum- 
stances either  of  them  should  have  been  more  than  a  match 
for  it.  But  at  this  most  momentous  juncture  their  century 
long  enmity,  which  had  sometimes  slumbered  for  genera- 
tions, had  broken  out  into  deadly  feud. 

A  few  years  before  the  appearance  of  the  new  and 
totally  unexpected  danger,  Chosroes  the  king  of  Persia  had 
effected  a  successful  invasion  of  the  Roman  Empire,  first 
penetrating  to  Palestine  and  seizing  Jerusalem.  That  city 
of  unparalleled  misfortunes  was  then  given  up  to  outrage 
and   plundering,  during  which  time  thousands  of   monks, 


THE   RISE   AND   SPREAD   OF   MOHAMMEDANISM       167 

nuns,  and  priests  were  slaughtered.  Fire  followed  pillage. 
The  church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  and  other  churches  were 
partially  or  wholly  wrecked.  From  Palestine  the  victor 
advanced  to  Egypt,  and  seized  Alexandria  amid  similar 
scenes  of  slaughter  and  outrage  (a.d.  618). 

At  length  Sergius  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople 
roused  the  Emperor  Heraclius  to  a  tremendous  effort  for  the 
recovery  of  his  lost  territory  and  Jerusalem  in  particular. 
The  tide  now  turned.  Victory  after  victory  attended  the 
Byzantine  arms.  A  great  point  was  made  of  the  fact  that 
the  Cross  in  its  reliquary  was  recovered  and  restored  to  the 
altar  at  the  Holy  Sepulchre.  Thus  this  was  in  a  way  a 
war  for  religion,  a  crusade  of  the  Eastern  Empire.  But  no 
sooner  was  the  great  feat  of  his  life  achieved  than  Heraclius 
began  to  live  at  ease,  till  he  sank  into  enervating  self-indul- 
gence among  the  lavish  luxuries  of  life  at  Constantinople. 

The  Eoman  emperor's  success  in  the  Persian  war  led 
him  to  underrate  the  new  danger  already  looming  on  the 
southern  horizon.  Besides,  when  the  conflict  with  Islam 
began  in  deadly  earnest  the  imperial  troops  were  divided 
among  themselves,  half-hearted,  and  so  reluctant  to  fight — 
if  we  may  credit  the  Arab  chronicler — that  in  some  cases 
they  were  dragged  forward  chained  together.  Such  an 
army  had  httle  chance  against  the  hardy  desert  veterans, 
dashing  into  battle  aflame  with  fanaticism.  Modern  science 
has  armed  the  civilised  nations  with  weapons  that  are 
practically  irresistible  by  barbarous  races.  But  before  the 
invention  of  gunpowder,  civilisation  and  barbarism  were 
more  on  a  level  in  military  resources. 

Chaldsea  and  Southern  Syria  were  in  close  touch  witli 
Arabia,  and  naturally  these  were  the  first  districts  to  be 
overrun  by  the  advancing  tide.  At  Hira  the  Arabs  came 
upon  a  monastery  outside  the  city  walls,  and  the  defence- 
less monks,  exposed  to  the  full  fury  of  their  attack,  and  seeing 
no  alternative  to  submission,  acted  as  intermediaries  and 
arranged  terms  of  surrender  between  the  invaders  and  the 
besieged  inhabitants  (a.d.  633).  The  Christians  in  this 
city  retained  their  faith  and  were  found  to  be  true  to  it 


168  THE   GREEK  AND    EASTERN   CHURCHES 

several  centuries  later,  in  spite  of  their  subjection  to  a 
Mohammedan  government. 

It  was  in  Syria  that  the  Arabs  came  into  contact  with 
tlic  Roman  Empire.  At  first  the  forces  of  the  invaders 
were  paralysed  by  the  confusion  and  jealousies  of  separate 
commands.  Then  Abu  Bekr  fetched  the  great  General 
K  hill  id  from  Mesopotamia  to  put  fresh  vigour  into  the 
attack.  Under  his  leadership  a  terrible  battle  was  fought 
close  to  the  Yermuk,  one  of  the  eastern  tributaries  of  the 
Jordan,  which  resulted  in  a  rout  of  the  Romans  (1st  of 
September,  a.d.  634).  The  Arab  chronicler  states  that  the 
beaten  imperial  troops  were  "  toppled  over  the  bank  even 
as  a  wall  is  toppled  over,"  and  adds  that  over  100,000 
men  were  lost  in  the  chasm.  The  Byzantine  chroniclers  are 
discreetly  silent  with  reference  to  these  disasters  of  the 
empire.  But  after  making  every  allowance  for  the  Oriental 
habit  of  exaggeration,  we  can  see  that  the  defeat  must  have 
been  complete.  This  astonishing  event  struck  terror  into 
the  court  at  Constantinople.  For  a  time  it  paralysed  the 
opposition  of  the  empire  to  the  daring  invasion  of  one  of 
the  fairest  of  its  provinces.  What  was  thus  lost  was  never 
again  permanently  recovered. 

The  same  year  Abu  Bekr  died.  He  had  lived  in 
extreme  simplicity — a  marked  contrast  to  the  luxury  and 
splendour  of  the  courts  of  the  emperor  and  the  great  king. 
When  the  treasury  at  Medina  was  opened  only  a  single 
gold  piece  fell  out  of  the  bags.  Although  much  wealth 
was  now  pouring  in  from  tribute,  "  all  shared  alike,  recent 
convert  and  veteran,  male  and  female,  bond  and  free." 
Abu  Bekr  was  succeeded  by  his  friend  and  counsellor,  the 
passionate,  energetic  Omar,  now  mellowed  with  age,  who 
as  the  second  caliph  proved  at  least  an  equally  capable 
ruler.  Thus  to  its  other  advantages  over  the  corrupt  and 
decrepit  empire  Islam  added  consummate  ability  in  its 
early  leaders. 

The  next  year  (a.d.  6.35)  Damascus  was  stormed,  but  the 
city  capitulated  just  in  time  to  save  the  lives  of  its  inhabit- 
ants.    Half  of  the  property  of  the  place  was  seized,  and, 


THE    RISE    AND    SPREAD    OF    MOHAMMEDANISM       169 

in  addition  to  the  taxes  raised  under  the  empire,  a  tribute 
of  one  piece  of  gold  was  imposed  on  every  male  adult  who 
did  not  embrace  Islam,  and  a  measure  of  corn  was  taken 
from  every  field.  This  became  the  model  for  the  treat- 
ment of  Christians  elsewhere.  The  churches  were  equally 
distributed  between  Christians  and  Mohammedans.  The 
great  cathedral  of  St.  John  the  Baptist  was  at  first  divided 
in  two,  one  half  serving  for  each  religion  ;  and  so  it  remained 
for  eighty  years,  after  which  time  the  Christians  were  ejected 
and  it  became  wholly  a  mosque.  But  down  to  our  day — 
even  in  spite  of  a  recent  fire — the  visitor  can  read  over 
its  chief  entrance  the  Psalmist's  magnificent  words — 

"  Thy  Kingdom,  0  Christ,  is  an  everlasting  Kingdom  ; 
And  Thy  Dominion  is  from  Generation  to  Generation."^ 

The  next  step  was  to  carry  the  war  with  Persia  to  a 
conclusion.  This  was  now  prosecuted  with  the  utmost 
vigour  till  the  capital  Medain  fell  into  the  hands  of  the 
invaders.  On  account  of  the  unhealthiness  of  its  site  for 
men  accustomed  to  the  pure  air  of  the  desert,  they  removed 
the  centre  of  government  to  two  new  places  which  rapidly 
grew  into  the  important  cities  of  Kufa  and  Bussorah. 

Meanwhile  the  movement  in  Syria  was  advancing. 
Heraclius  retired  to  Eoha  (Edessa),  and  the  Arabs  under 
Khalid  defeated  the  Byzantine  forces  at  Chalcis,  and  then 
advanced  on  Aleppo,  which  they  seized.  A  battle  was 
fought  in  the  woods  near  Antioch,  and  this  too  went 
against  the  Greeks,  who  were  driven  back  to  the  city, 
which  was  then  invested.  It  soon  capitulated.  Thus  the 
great,  rich  capital  of  Syria,  the  centre  of  Christianity  in  the 
province,  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Mohammedans.  The 
Bedouin  Christians  of  Syria,  who  had  never  been  very 
fervent  in  their  faith,  for  the  most  part  went  over  to  Islam  ; 
but  the  inhabitants  of  the  cities  remained  true.  These 
people  were  treated  with  moderation ;  their  churches  were 

1  H  BACIAEIA-  COT  XE  BACIAEIA-  HANTON-  TON  AIONON'  KAI* 
H-  AECnOTEIA-  COT'  EN'  HACH-  TENEAI-  KAI  TENEAI. 


170  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

not  taken  from  them,  and  public  Christian  worship  was 
permitted.  Heraclius  now  retreated  to  Constantinople, 
admitting  sadly  that  the  valuable  province  of  Syria  was 
lost  to  the  empire. 

Palestine  was  next  invaded  by  armies  under  Amr'  and 
Shorahbil.  At  Jerusalem  the  patriarch  Sophroniiis,  as  the 
representative  of  the  people,  sued  for  peace.  Omar  attach(Ml 
80  much  importance  to  the  possession  of  the  sacred  city  that 
he  travelled  to  Jabia — the  first  journey  of  a  caliph  out  of 
Arabia — and  there  met  a  deputation  from  the  patriarch, 
with  whom  he  arranged  terms  of  capitulation  (a.d.  636). 
Then  he  went  up  to  Jerusalem  and  received  Sophronius 
and  the  citizens  in  a  kindly  manner,  imposing  a  light  tribute 
and  permitting  the  continued  possession  and  use  of  all  the 
churches  and  shrines  by  the  Christians.  This  event  is  of  great 
importance  in  view  of  subsequent  history.  When  we  come 
to  the  time  of  the  Crusaders  and  observe  the  fanatical  fury 
they  exhibited  while  rescuing  the  holy  sites  from  the  hands 
of  the  infidel,  it  will  be  well  to  recollect  that  the  city  had 
been  transferred  to  the  Mohammedans  without  any  resist- 
ance by  the  action  of  the  Christian  patriarch.  Thus 
Sophronius  carried  out  under  new  circumstances  the  same 
policy  that  Jeremiah  had  urged  in  vain  upon  his  infatuated 
contemporaries  when  an  earlier  invasion  from  the  East  was 
coming  up  with  a  force  that  made  resistance  hopeless. 
Much  happened  between  the  peaceful  surrender  of  the  city 
in  the  seventh  century  to  the  courteous  and  reasonable 
Omar  and  the  wrongs  and  sufferings  that  provoked  the 
Crusades  five  hundred  years  later.  The  so-called  Ordinance 
of  Omar  attributes  to  the  great  caliph  a  number  of  humiliat- 
ing exactions  for  which  he  was  not  responsible  and  which 
represent  the  accretions  of  succeeding  years  of  despotism. 
When  the  caliphate  was  established  at  Damascus  and 
Bagdad,  the  simple  requirement  of  tribute  was  not  deemed 
enough  to  stamp  the  inferiority  of  the  Christians.  They 
were  to  become  marked  men  and  women  by  wearing  yellow 
stripes  in  their  dress ;  they  were  forbidden  to  ride  on 
horseback ;    if  riding  an   ass  or  a  mule  it  must  be  with 


THE    RISE    AND    SPREAD    OF    MOHAMMEDANISM       171 

wooden  stirrups  and  saddle  knobs ;  their  graves  were  to  be 
level  with  the  ground ;  their  children  were  prohibited  the 
instruction  of  Moslem  masters ;  no  high  office  was  to  be 
entrusted  to  them ;  no  new  churchee  were  to  be  erected  ; 
no  cross  was  to  remain  outside  a  church ;  no  bells  were  to 
be  rung ;  no  processions  were  to  be  permitted  at  Easter  or 
any  festal  occasion ;  the  Mohammedans  were  to  be  allowed 
free  access  to  the  holy  sites.  Worse  was  done  apart  from 
any  ordinances ;  but  these  recognised  rules  were  sufficient 
to  set  a  badge  of  inferiority  on  the  Christians  and  restrain 
the  demonstration  of  their  religion.  Perhaps,  however, 
when  we  consider  the  intolerance  practised  between  the 
several  parties  in  the  Church  one  against  another,  often 
amounting  to  serious  persecution  and  sometimes  breaking 
out  into  bloodshed,  we  may  still  respect  and  honour  the 
comparative  liberality  and  patience  of  their  Mohammedan 
masters. 

Arabia,  however,  presents  an  exception  to  this  policy  of 
comparative  tolerance.  This  was  yar  excellence  the  land  of 
Islam.  Mohammed  had  said,  "  In  Arabia  there  shall  be  no 
faith  but  the  faith  of  Islam."  Accordingly  an  ancient  body 
of  Christians  in  the  province  of  Najran  was  driven  into  exile. 
Some  settled  in  Syria,  others  near  Kufa,  both  parties,  it 
will  be  observed,  still  under  the  Mohammedan  government. 

In  the  year  340  Amr'  invaded  Egypt.  Approaching 
the  country  in  a  south-westerly  direction,  he  first  subdued 
Upper  Egypt  and  thence  descended  on  Alexandria.  During 
the  siege  Heraclius  died  ;  the  Greek  naval  troops  took  to 
their  ships  and  fled ;  and  the  weakened  garrison  found  it 
necessary  to  capitulate.  This  saved  the  city  from  destruc- 
tion ;  its  Christian  inhabitants  like  the  Copts  elsewhere 
were  treated  leniently  and  merely  put  under  tribute. 
Nevertheless,  here  was  another  limb  torn  from  the  Eoman 
Empire  in  the  East.  First  Syria,  next  Egypt,  two  of  the 
most  important  provinces,  had  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the 
Arabs.  The  two  great  patriarchates  of  Antioch  and  Alex- 
andria now  came  under  the  yoke  of  the  Mohammedan 
government. 


172  THE   GREKK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Tlie  case  of  Egypt  is  peculiarly  important  for  the 
glaring  proofs  it  affords  of  the  suicidal  policy  of  the  Church 
and  State  in  preparing  for  the  final  collapse  of  the  power  of 
both  in  this  province.  Chosroes  had  done  great  mischief  in 
his  invasion  ;  but  this  came  and  went,  while  the  oppression 
of  the  imperial  government  was  almost  more  intolerable, 
because  it  was  continuous.  As  Monophysites  the  Copts 
were  disowned  by  the  Church  and  persecuted  by  the  State. 
In  comparison  with  the  Byzantine  intolerance  the  yoke  of 
the  Mohammedan  government  seemed  easy.  To  these 
ill-treated  Copts  the  invader  came  as  a  deliverer.  It  was 
tlie  policy  of  the  Arabs  to  favour  the  schismatics  and 
heretics  among  the  Christians  in  order  to  weaken  the 
empire's  power  of  resistance.  These  people  have  been 
accused  of  directly  aiding  the  infidels.  While  it  cannot  be 
denied  that  in  some  cases  they  did  so,  the  wholesale  charges 
brought  against  them  by  their  opponents  go  beyond  verifi- 
able facts.  All  down  the  course  of  history  we  have  to 
be  on  our  guard  against  the  libels  perpetrated  against 
heretics  by  the  narrow-minded,  passionate  champions  of 
orthodoxy.  But  for  the  purposes  of  an  invader  mere 
passivity  and  non-resistance  would  be  almost  as  serviceable 
as  direct  assistance.  There  was  no  question  of  patriotism. 
From  time  immemorial  the  Egyptians  had  lived  under 
tyrannical  masters,  and  certainly  they  had  little  reason  to 
cultivate  a  sentiment  of  loyalty  to  the  Greek  despot  at 
Constantinople  who  lent  his  forces  to  aid  the  Church  of  the 
empire  in  punishing  them  for  what  they  regarded  as  their 
higher  loyalty — their  loyalty  to  Christ  and  truth. 

Thus  it  came  about  that  the  Nestorians  in  Syria  and 
the  Jacobites  in  Egypt — both  out  of  favour  with  the  Greek 
government,  because  out  of  communion  with  the  Greek 
Church — found  rest  and  protection  under  the  segis  of 
Islam.  This  fact  needs  to  be  grasped  in  all  its  wide- 
reaching  significance  if  we  would  account  for  the  success  of 
the  Mohammedan  movement.  But  even  at  first  the  rest  was 
often  disturbed  and  the  protection  accompanied  by  irksome 
conditions,  and  it  was  not  long  before  the  mild  sway  of  the 


THE    RISE    AND    SPREAD    OF    MOHAMMEDANISM       173 

early  caliphs  was  followed  by  the  harsh  and  cruel  tyranny 
of  their  degenerate  successors.  Meanwhile  the  mischief 
was  done.  The  empire  had  lost  its  provinces  ;  the  Church 
was  divided  and  insuperable  barriers  were  raised  against 
reunion. 

Further,  when  we  consider  that,  while  theological 
rancour  ruled  among  the  clergy,  relic  and  image  worship 
was  the  most  popular  form  of  religion  among  the  laity, 
we  can  understand  how  the  Mohammedan  gained  ground 
by  presenting  to  the  world  what  on  the  face  of  it  was  a 
purer  faith.  The  wonder  is  that  most  of  the  Christians 
remained  true  to  their  religion.  No  doubt  there  was  much 
genuine  piety  among  the  people  of  which  history — chiefly 
concerned  with  the  quarrels  of  the  clergy — does  not  con- 
descend to  take  account.  That  was  the  saving  salt.  We 
come  across  pleasing  instances  of  friendships  between 
liberal-minded  caliphs  and  Christian  scholars.  Moham- 
medanism had  its  lessons  to  teach  Christendom.  Lastly, 
the  iconoclastic  controversy,  which  became  <  the  next 
disturbing  movement  in  Eastern  Christendom,  can  be 
traced  in  a  measure  to  the  influence  of  Islam.  It  was 
JMohimmed's  war  against  idols  carried  over  into  the 
Church. 


CHAPTER  II 

BYZANTINE   ART 

(a)  Eusebius,  Hist.  Ecd.  x.  4  ;  Vit.  Const,  iii.  48,  50  ;  Procopius, 
de  yEdificiis  Judiniani,  i.  1-3  ;  Evagrius,  Hist.  Ecd.  iv.  31. 

(6)  Fergusson,  Handbook  of  Arcliitedure,  1859  ;  de  Vogiie,  Eglises 
de  la  Terre  Sainte,  1860 ;  Hiibsch,  Alt.  Christ.  Kirchen, 
1862;  Smith,  Did.  Christ.  Antiq.,  Articles:  "Church," 
"  Image,"  "  Jesus  Christ,  Representations  of  "  ;  Mrs.  Jameson 
and  Lady  Eastlake,  Hist,  of  our  Lord  .  .  .  in  Works  of  Art, 
1864 ;  Bayet,  I'Art  Byzantine,  1883  ;  Leclerq,  Manuet 
d' Ardi^ologie  Chretienne,  1907. 

The  characteristics  of  Church  life  at  this  period  are  quite 
as  clearly  impressed  upon  its  art  as  upon  its  literature. 
By  studying  the  controversial  writings  of  the  time  we 
may  be  able  to  gain  some  insight  into  the  intellectual  con- 
ditions of  bishops  and  other  leading  theologians ;  but  when 
we  look  at  the  churches,  with  their  paintings  and  mosaics, 
many  of  which  are  still  extant,  or  come  to  imagine  what 
they  are  and  were  by  means  of  plans,  photographs,  and 
descriptions,  we  are  really  brought  much  nearer  to  the 
actual  lives  of  the  men  and  women  who  constituted  the 
mass  of  Christendom  in  these  days  of  the  Greek  Empire. 
The  iconoclastic  controversy  which  broke  out  early  in  the 
eiglith  century  has  forced  the  attention  of  historians  to  one 
phase  of  this  subject,  and  its  importance  cannot  be  weio-hed 
or  its  significance  appreciated  till  we  have  before  our  minds' 
eye  a  vivid  conception  of  the  scenes  amid  which  it  moved. 
But  more  than  that,  we  need  to  have  some  idea  of  the 
large  place  occupied  by  art  in  the  Eastern  Church  in  order 
to  understand  the  life  and  character  of  the  people  who 
compobed  it.      Dean  Stanley  pointed  out  that  what  music 


BYZANTINE    ART  175 

is  in  the  Western  Church,  pictures  are  in  the  Eastern.  They 
express  the  colour,  the  emotion,  even  the  passion  of  religion. 

In  considering  this  subject  we  will  look  first  at  the 
architecture  of  the  churches,  and  then  consider  the  pictorial 
art  with  which  their  walls  were  clothed. 

Byzantine  architecture  is  the  only  style  of  building 
that  can  be  correctly  denominated  Christian  architecture. 
We  are  accustomed  to  assign  that  title  to  the  Gothic  order ; 
but  neither  its  area,  its  age,  nor  its  origin  justify  us  in 
doing  so.  Our  English  cathedrals  and  the  great  churches 
of  France  are  sometimes  described  as  embodiments  of  the 
Christian  idea,  with  its  far-reaching  mystery  and  its  soar- 
ing aspiration.  Those  forests  of  clustered  pillars  and  long 
vaulted  aisles,  like  avenues  in  stone,  the  fine  pointed  arches, 
the  "storied  windows  richly  dight,"  the  towers  and  spires 
and  pinnacles,  the  quiet  side-chapels,  the  sheltered  cloisters 
— all  contrast  strongly  with  the  ordered  symmetry  and  clear 
daylight  beauty  of  the  self-contained,  perfect  Greek  temples. 
Accordingly  we  have  come  to  take  them  as  expressive  of 
the  essential  difference  between  the  spirit  of  Christianity  and 
the  spirit  of  classical  paganism.  To  be  more  accurate,  we 
should  say  that  this  Gothic,  as  rich  in  colour  when  it  was 
first  produced  as  it  was  elaborate  in  form,  really  repre- 
sents only  the  mediaeval  mind  and  Ufe  of  north-west 
Europe.  It  is  Anglo-Saxon  and  Frankish.  We  meet 
with  little  of  it  in  southern  Europe.  In  Italy  the  Eoman 
and  Eomanesque  styles  persisted  till  they  blossomed  into 
the  Eenaiscent.  We  have  Gothic  architecture  in  northern 
Italy,  in  Tuscany,  and  to  a  small  extent  even  in  Eome, 
but  only  as  an  exotic,  a  temporary,  alien  visitor.  Its  most 
glorious  product,  Giotto's  Campanile  at  Florence,  that 
work  of  jewellery  in  architecture,  with  its  straight  lines 
and  right  angles,  and  its  horizontal  summit,  has  many 
traces  of  the  persistence  of  the  Eomanesque  about  it. 
Moreover,  it  must  be  admittted  that  on  the  whole 
St.  Paolo  outside  the  city  of  Eome  represents  more  truly 
the  earher  period  of  the  Christian  architecture  of  south 
Europe  and  St.  Peter's  the  later. 


170  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Then,  if  we  turn  to  the  measurement  of  time,  the 
limited  range  of  the  Gothic  art  will  be  equally  apparent. 
It  rose  in  the  twelfth  century  and  it  declined  in  the 
sixteenth  ;  it  did  not  flourish  in  full  vigour  for  more  than 
tliree  or  four  hundred  years.  Even  in  the  north  it  was 
preceded  by  the  Komanesque,  especially  in  the  type 
commonly  called  Norman,  and  it  was  followed  by 
Kenaiscent.  In  England  the  great  Durham  nave  and 
many  another  cathedral  and  church  structure  of  the 
twelfth  century  and  earlier  bear  witness  against  the 
unique  claim  of  the  pointed  arch  to  represent  antiquity, 
and  St.  Paul's  Cathedral  is  the  plainest  proof  of  its  tran- 
sience. Christianity  is  nearly  two  thousand  years  old ;  the 
reign  of  Gothic  architecture  lasted  less  than  one-fifth  of 
this  time. 

The  third  point  concerns  the  question  of  origin. 
Fanciful  theories  about  the  Gothic  symbolism  must  give 
place  to  sober  conceptions  of  a  very  different  kind  when 
we  trace  the  early  English  and  the  corresponding 
Continental  styles  to  their  origins.  Then  it  is  seen  that 
the  pointed  arch  did  not  arise  from  a  contemplation  of 
the  effect  produced  by  the  crossing  of  round  arches  in 
mural  decoration — as  at  Norwich  and  many  other  places. 
Structurally,  it  came  from  the  desire  to  improve  on  the 
Eoman  barrel-shaped  vault — to  strengthen  it  by  raising 
its  centre,  so  as  to  adapt  it  to  the  sloping  roof  by  bringing 
the  top  of  the  vault  nearer  to  the  ridge  of  the  roof,  and 
at  the  same  time  to  admit  of  the  adjustment  of  transverse 
vaulting  for  transepts,  chapels,  and  windows.  The  pointed 
window  naturally  followed  the  pointed  vault  above  it.  No 
doubt  northern  requirements  helped  the  evolution  of  certain 
Gothic  features.  The  steep  roof  would  be  useful  for  throw- 
ing off  snow ;  the  large  window  would  be  good  for  light  in  a 
dull  and  cloudy  climate.  This  would  admit  of  tracery,  and 
when  stained  glass  was  introduced  it  would  be  desirable  for 
it  to  become  larger  still.  Then  in  turn  the  great  windows, 
by  weakening  the  walls,  would  concentrate  the  weight  and 
thrust  on  what  remained  so  as  to  necessitate  the  support 


BYZANTINE   ART  177 

of  buttresses,  considered  by  some  ^  to  be  the  essential  note 
of  Gothic  architecture,  its  one  invariably  characteristic 
feature.  Thus  we  have  the  system  of  balance,  thrust  and 
counter-thrust,  and  ultimately  the  skilful  adjustment  of 
points  of  support  and  resistance  to  the  total  elimination 
of  constructive  walls,  as  at  Sainte  Chapelle  in  Paris,  at 
Beauvais,  and  at  Amiens.  All  this  no  doubt  is  a  western 
and  northern  development  taking  place  within  Christendom. 
Still  it  is  not  exclusively  religious  architecture.  We  have 
some  of  the  finest  specimens  of  Gothic  in  the  cloth  halls 
and  tovni  halls  of  Ypres  and  Bruges,  Louvain  and  Brussels. 
The  pointed  arch  is  an  importation  from  the  East,  where  it 
was  used  centuries  before  it  appeared  in  the  West.  There, 
however,  it  was  not  Christian  in  origin  or  usage,  but 
Saracenic.  It  is  no  mere  coincidence,  therefore,  that  it  was 
adopted  in  Western  Europe  just  after  the  Crusades,  which 
had  reopened  communication  with  the  East.  At  the  same 
time  this  architecture  was  being  directly  developed  by  the 
Mohammedan  invaders  of  Sicily  and  by  the  Moors  in 
Spain. 

Now  let  us  turn  to  Byzantine  architecture.  This  has 
dominated  Eastern  Christendom  from  the  sixth  century 
to  our  own  age.  For  fourteen  hundred  years  it  has  been 
the  one  system  followed  by  the  Oriental  half  of  Christendom. 
From  the  first  it  was  conterminous  with  the  Byzantine 
Empire,  and  therefore  it  has  extended  as  far  as  Eavenna 
in  Italy,  the  capital  of  the  Exarchate,  and  given  us  one 
of  its  most  magnificent  products  in  St.  Mark's  at  Venice. 
Further,  this  architecture  is  not  only  spread  over  a  much 
larger  area  and  found  to  be  flourishing  for  a  much  longer 
period  than  the  Gothic ;  unlike  that  system,  it  can  claim 
a  purely  Christian  origin.  It  was  developed  on  Christian 
soil  and  to  serve  Christian  purposes.  From  the  first  it 
was  essentially  Church  architecture.  It  is  the  one  style  of 
building  that  has  been  evolved  for  the  express  purpose 
of  meeting  the  requirements  of  Christian  worship  as  this 
is  practised  in  the  Greek  Church.     Gothic,  as  illustrated 

^  e.g.  Bond,  Gothic  Architecture. 
12 


178  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

iu  our  cathedrals,  is  a  northeru  adaptation  of  ideas,  in 
themselves  independent  of  the  Church,  to  the  requirements 
of  mediaeval  Catholicism  north  of  the  Alps ;  Byzantine  is 
the  one  style  of  architecture  that  can  claim  to  be  ecclesi- 
astical both  in  its  origin  and  in  its  intention. 

Previous  to  the  development  of   the  Byzantine  style, 
the  church  building  was  an  adaptation  of  Eoman   archi- 
tecture to  Christian  uses.       At   tirst  meetings  were  held 
in  rooms  of  houses,  in  a  portico  of  the  Jerusalem  Temple, 
perhaps  in  hired  halls.^       The  worship  in  the  catacombs 
was  organised    simply  because   there   the   bretlnen   could 
assemble   at  the   tombs  of   the   martyrs.     Justin    Martyr 
declares  that  the  Christians  are  not  dependent  on  sacred 
places  for  their  meetings,  as  they  can  worship  anywhere.^ 
Still,  as  the  numbers  grew  it  became   necessary  to  have 
buildings  of  sufficient  size  to  hold  large  congregations.     At 
the  same  time  the  Church  began  to  acquire  property  in 
Ijuildings.     We  come  across  an  instance  of  this  during  the 
reign    of    Alexander    Sever  us    (a.d.   230)    in   Kome,    and 
again  under   Aurelian  at   Antioch  (a.d.   270-275),  when 
the  emperor  was  appealed  to  by  the  orthodox  section  of 
the  Church  to  decide  their  right  to  take  possession  of  the 
building  at  Antioch  which  Paul  of  Samosata  had  retained 
in  defiance  of  deposition  by  a  council,  so  long  as  he  had 
enjoyed    the     patronage    of     Queen     Zeuobia.       Aurelian 
granted  it  to  those  "  with  whom  the  Christian  bishops  of 
Italy  and  Eome  were  in  correspondence."  ^     By  this  time 
there  must  have  been  many  important  church  buildings. 
The  Diocletian  persecution  began  with  the  destruction  of 
the  sreat   chm'ch   at    Nicodemia,   in   accordance   with  an 
imperial   edict   for   the   general    demolition   of    churches.* 
With  the  time  of  Constantine  we  come  to  the  great  age 
of    church    building,    and     now    much    more    magnificent 
structures  appear    than  those   of    the    period    before    the 

'  e.g.  Acts  xix.  9 — but  this  was  for  public  discussion,  not  for  Church 
worship. 

-  .Martyrdom  of  Justin  and  Others,  2. 

»  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  vii.  27-30.  *  Ibid.  viii.  2. 


BYZANTINE   ART  179 

imperial  recognition  of  Christianity.  The  emperor  him- 
self was  foremost  in  promoting  the  work,  especially  in 
his  new  city  of  Constantinople,  but  also  at  Jerusalem 
and  Bethlehem. 

The  model  for  this  church  architecture  was  not  the 
pagan  temple,  which  was  manifestly  unsuitable  for  the  pur- 
poses of  public  worship.      The  temple  was  the  home  of  a 
god,  not  a  place  of  assembly.      Here  priests  sacrificed,  and 
worshippers  prayed,  made  vows,  brought  votive  offerings. 
There  were  special  festivals,  and  some  temples  were  the 
scenes   of   the   celebration   of   mysteries.      None    of    these 
functions   required  the  large  assembly  hall  needed    by  a 
Christian  congregation.      Accordingly,  although   in   a   few 
cases,  as  with  the  Pantheon  at  Kome,  a  pagan  temple  came 
to  be  consecrated  as  a  Christian  Church,  the  Christians  did 
not   take   the   temple    as    the   model   for    their    place    of 
woiship.     They    found    this    in    the    basilica,   or  Hall  of 
Justice,  the  Eoman  law  court.      In  consequence  the  large 
churches  have  Come  to  be  called   "  basilicas."      Eusebius 
gives  us  the  earliest  description  of  such  a  church  in  his 
account  of  the  new  building  at  Tyre,  at  the  dedication  of 
which  an  Arian  council  was  summoned.     It  stood  in  a  great 
open  space  enclosed  by  a  wall,  and  was  approached  through 
a    magnificent    portico,^    which    led    into    a   quadrangular 
atrium ,2  surrounded  with  interior  porticoes,  and  having  a 
fountain  in  the  centre  for  washing  the  hands  and  feet,  as 
we  see  now  at  IMohammedan  mosques  ;  beyond  tlie  atrium 
was  the  basilica  proper,*  a  building  roofed  with  cedar  wood 
and  having  side  aisles  and  galleries.      There  were  chairs  * 
for  the  bishop  and  his  clergy  round  about  the  altar  at  tlie 
end  of  the  church,  fenced  off  from  the  rest  of  the  nave  with 
lattice  work.^     The  Apostolical  Constitutions  knows  of  no 
such  separation  between  the  clergy  and  the  laity,  showing 
that  this  significant  barrier  must  have  been  quite  a  recent 
innovation,  for  our  present  redaction  of  that  work  cannot 
be    earlier   than   the    fourth    century.      Yet    we    read    in 

1  irp6irv\ov.  "  aWpiov.  ^  ^acriKetos  oIkos. 

*  6p6voL.  *  Eusebius,  Hist,  Eccl.  x,  4, 


ISO  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

it    the    following    directions    for    the    arrangement    of    a 

church  : — 

"  And  first,  let  the  building  be  long,  with  its  head  to 
the  east,  with  its  vestries  on  both  sides  at  the  east  end  ; 
and  so  it  will  be  like  a  ship.^  In  the  middle  let  the 
bislioi)'s  chair  be  placed,  and  on  each  side  of  him  let  the 
pr('.si»ytery  sit  down  ;  and  let  the  deacons  stand  near  at 
band,  in  close  and  small  girt  garments,  for  they  are  like 
the  mariners  and  managers  of  the  ship:  with  regard  to 
these,  let  the  laity  sit  on  the  other  side,  with  all  quietness 
and  good  order.  And  let  the  women  sit  by  themselves, 
they  also  keeping  silence.  In  the  middle  let  the  reader 
stand  upon  some  high  place."  ^ 

This  may  be  taken  as  the  method  followed  down  to 
the  fourth  century.  The  separation  of  the  clergy  from 
the  laity  by  a  screen  tended  to  assimilate  the  Eucharist 
still  more  to  the  pagan  mysteries,  and  to  make  it  a 
sacrifice  offered  by  the  priest  rather  than  a  meal,  partici- 
pation in  which  by  the  people  is  its  principal  function. 
Although  the  Western  Church  adopted  the  full  sacrificial 
idea  it  did  not  screen  off  the  clergy  as  that  was  done  in 
the  Eastern  Churches ;  it  was  content  with  a  slight  railing, 
leaving  the  officiating  minister  full  in  view.  Here  we 
have  one  of  the  most  striking  differences  between  Eastern 
and  Western  Churches. 

From  the  time  of  Constantine  to  the  age  of  Justinian 
the  Eoman  style  of  basilica  prevailed.  In  the  sixth 
century  the  new  order  which  we  know  as  Byzantine 
appears,  and  the  rise  of  it  synchronises  with  the  great 
impulse  to  church  building  that  was  given  by  the  latter 
emperor.  This  development  may  be  attributed  in  part  to 
the  influence  of  Persian  architecture  on  the  Greek  branch  of 
the  empire.^  But  although  the  stimulus  came  from  the 
Eastern  neighbour,  the  system  itself  was  a  legitimate 
development  of  the  preceding  Koman  style.     That  was  not 

^  »'a6$  =  nave.  ^  Ajtost.  Const,  ii.  57. 

^  Feigusson  regards  Byzantine  architecture  as  a  combination  of  Roman 
and  Sasanian,     See  Handbook  of  Architecture,  p.  945. 


BYZANTINE    ART  181 

an  original  style,  nor  was  it  true  to  any  central  idea.  It 
was  mainly  a  combination  of  the  Eoman  arch  with  the 
Greek  column  and  architrave.  But  the  combination  was 
really  superfluous,  for  structurally  the  arch  dispensed  with 
the  architrave.  Accordingly  the  columns  and  architraves 
were  relegated  to  the  surface  of  the  walls  for  decorative 
purposes.  They  were  mere  survivals,  and  Byzantine  archi- 
tecture dispensed  with  them  altogether  as  superfluities, 
being  content  to  have  plainer  exteriors,  while  the  whole 
attention  of  the  decorator  was  devoted  to  the  elaborate 
adornment  of  the  interior  with  gold,  mosaic,  and  mural 
painting. 

The  Romans  invented  the  dome  and  left  the  most 
magnificent  specimen  of  that  daring  structure  in  the  Pan- 
theon ;  but  they  did  not  develop  this  original  idea,  seeing 
that  they  could  only  apply  it  to  round  buildings.  Since 
they  required  length  in  their  basilica  they  made  use  of  the 
arch  for  its  roof,  simply  prolonging  this  in  the  form  of 
a  barrel.  Now  the  primary  characteristic  of  Byzantine 
architecture  is  its  development  of  the  method  of  roofing 
with  domes.  The  most  perfect  specimen  of  this  work  is 
the  great  church  of  St.  Sophia  at  Constantinople,  which 
it  was  the  pride  of  Justinian  to  have  built.  Two  earlier 
churches  had  been  burnt — Constantine's  church  in  A.D. 
404,  at  the  time  of  Chrysostom,  and  its  successor  in 
A.D.  532.  Strictly  speaking,  Justinian's  St.  Sophia — still 
standing  and  now  used  as  a  mosque — is  not  typical 
Byzantine  architecture.  It  is  quite  unique.  Nothing  of 
the  kind  had  preceded  it ;  it  was  never  successfully 
imitated.  Its  famous  architect,  Anthemius,  has  the  proud 
distinction  of  having  produced  a  work  without  peer  or 
parallel  in  all  the  ages  of  building.  "  St.  Sophia,"  says 
M.  Bayet,  "  has  the  double  advantage  of  marking  the 
advent  of  a  new  style  and  reaching  at  the  same  time  such 
proportions  as  have  never  been  surpassed  in  the  East."  ^ 
The  most  essential  trait  of  this  invention  and  its  crowning 

1  VArt  Byzantine,   p.    41.      Cf.   L.   M.    Phillips,   "  Santa  Sophia "  in 
Contem;porary  Review,  No.  493,  pp.  55-76. 


182  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

glory  is  the  adaptation  of  the  dome,  which  hitherto  had 
only  appeared  on  round  buildings,  to  a  rectangular  building 
by  means  of  a  series  of  lesser  domes  filling  up  the  angle 
spaces  and  mounting  one  above  another,  till  the  great 
central  dome  soars  over  all,  and  the  whole  cluster  looked 
at  from  beneath  has  the  effect  of  cavernous  vaults  in  a  vast- 
ness  of  lofty  space.  The  Byzantine  architecture  which 
followed  also  adapted  the  dome  to  rectilineal  lines,  some- 
times by  having  the  building  beneath  it  octagonal,  or  by 
means  of  other  devices,  but  never  with  any  approach  to  the 
glory  of  St.  Sophia. 

While  this  structural  triumph  of  genius  is  the  chief 
peculiarity  of  St.  Sophia,  another  feature  of  Jus- 
tinian's basilica,  being  more  easily  imitated,  has  become 
a  marked  characteristic  of  Byzantine  architecture.  This 
is  its  wealth  of  decorative  splendour.  In  the  decoration 
of  St.  Sophia  the  richest  materials — gold,  silver,  ivory, 
precious  stones — were  used  with  incredible  prodigality. 
The  great  dome  was  constructed  with  white  tiles  from 
Ehodes,  one  -  fifth  the  weight  of  ordinary  tiles.  Soon 
after  it  had  been  completed  it  was  thrown  down  by 
an  earthquake.  It  was  rebuilt  more  strongly,  and  it 
has  stood  through  nearly  fourteen  centuries  till  our  own 
time.  The  ambo  placed  near  the  centre,  made  of  most 
beautiful  marbles  and  surmounted  with  a  dome  and  cross 
of  gold,  consumed  one  year's  Egyptian  revenue.  The 
choir  was  separated  from  the  nave  by  a  solid  silver  screen. 
The  altar  was  of  gold  set  with  jewels  beneath  a  gold 
dome  and  cross  sustained  by  four  silver  columns.  The 
interior  surfaces  of  domes  and  walls  were  completely 
covered  with  immense  mosaics,  consisting  of  majestic 
figures,  on  a  ground  in  some  places  of  gold,  in  others  of  a 
deep  blue  colour  ;  some  of  these  however  were  later  than 
the  time  of  Justinian.  At  night,  when  the  whole  building 
was  lit  up  with  the  scattered  radiance  of  6,000  candelabras, 
the  effect  must  have  been  superb.  Justinian  appears  to 
have  been  more  proud  of  his  basilica  at  Constantinople 
than   of    the   conquests    of    his    great    general  Belisarius, 


BYZANTINE    ART  183 

which  gave  him  back  for  a  time  the  best  part  of  the  lost 
western  half  of  the  empire,  or  the  codification  of  Eoman  law 
with  which  his  name  has  become  most  familiarly  associated 
in  later  history.  Truth  will  not  allow  us  to  think  that 
this  work  was  executed  solely  for  the  glory  of  God.  Very 
significant  of  the  spirit  in  which  all  its  splendour  was 
produced  is  Justinian's  famous  explanation  in  comtempla- 
tion  of  it :  "  I  have  beaten  thee,  Solomon."  ^ 

While  in  its  peculiar  glory  of  construction  St.  Sophia 
was  never  followed  by  subsequent  builders,  there  is  a 
church  at  Salonica  that  appears  to  be  an  imitation  of  it, 
and  from  the  period  of  Justinian  the  Latin  basilica  form 
declines  and  we  have  churches  with  domes,  plain  exterior 
walls,  and  rich  interior  decoration  of  gold 'surfaces,  mosaics, 
frescoes,  and  elaborate  capitals — the  best  known  of  which  is 
St.  Mark's  at  Venice.  Earlier  Byzantine  work  is  illus- 
trated in  the  West  at  Kavenna  and  in  Sicily.  It  is  the 
prevalent  style  of  Greek  church  architecture. 

Manuscripts  now  began  to  imitate  the  architectural 
decorative  style.  The  Laurentian  monastery  at  Florence 
contains  a  Syriac  MS.  executed  as  early  as  a.d.  586, 
with  beautiful  Byzantine  decorations  on  nearly  every 
page. 

At  the  same  time  sculpture  declined.  There  were 
statues  of  emperors  and  bas-reliefs  of  religious  scenes  in 
the  earlier  period,  but  sculpture  was  rarely  if  ever  used  in 
the  East  for  statues  of  Christ,  the  Virgin,  or  saints.  This 
is  a  point  in  which  the  Eastern  Church  differs  from  the 
Western,  where  statuary  is  a  marked  feature  of  church 
decoration  and  comes  into  close  connection  with  worship. 
There  are  no  statues  in  Eastern  churches.  The  icono- 
clastic dispute  to  which  our  attention  will  next  be  directed, 
though  commonly  described  as  concerned  with  "  image 
worship,"  refers  to  pictures,  the  only  kind  of  images 
worshipped  in  the  Greek  part  of  Christendom.  There 
never  was  any  Church  decree  to  forbid  the  use  of  solid 
images.       It   appears  to    have    been    by  a  sort    of    tacit 

^  Nej'^/cijKtt  ere  "ZoKofJ-ibv, 


184  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

understanding  and  mutual  couKcnt  tliat  tlioy  were  ruled 
out.  At  first  the  horror  of  pagan  idolatry  was  Ruflicicnt 
to  preclude  Christian  idolatry.  Suhsequently,  no  douht, 
the  fierce  Mohannuedan  war  on  idols  would  keep  the 
Eastern  Christians  from  following  the  example  of  their 
Western  hretliren  for  very  sliamc.  When  the  image  wor- 
shippers were  opposed  hy  the  IcoiioclaKts  on  the  ground 
of  idolatry,  they  could  better  defend  their  pictures  than 
they  could  have  defended  statues  wliich  would  have  been 
very  like  the  pagan  idols.  Sculpture  was  now  only  used  for 
bas-reliefs  on  ambos  and  for  other  architectural  decorative 
purposes.  At  Eavenna  the  human  figure  is  neglected,  and 
we  have  lambs,  doves,  peacocks,  vases  of  water,  irumo- 
grams,  crosses.  A  seventh  century  work  at  Venice  repre- 
sents the  a])ostles  as  twelve  lambs. 

The  religious  veneriition  given  to  pictures  never  cor- 
responds to  their  artistic  merits.  Some  of  tlie  ugliest 
paintings  have  received  the  highest  honours  owing  to  their 
anti(iuity,  their  legendary  origin,  oi'  tlie  mira(;u](jus  powers 
with  which  they  have  been  credited.  In  the  church  of  St. 
Sylvester  at  Rome  there  is  the  portrait  of  Christ  said  to 
have  been  sent  to  Abgarus  of  Edessa,  given  to  the  church 
of  St.  Sophia  at  Constantinople,  and  thence  transferred  to 
its  present  resting-place.  Among  tlie  lolics  at  th(!  Vatican 
is  the  poi'trait,  according  to  the  legend,  imjd'CHsod  on  the; 
handkerchief  which  St.  Veronica  lent  to  tlic;  Sjivioiii'  on  His 
way  to  the  Cross.  Tlicse  two  most  prcjcious  of  .'ill  ])ic,iur(;K, 
regarded  from  the  stand]»oint  of  the  ;uloring  vvorKhi))])(ir,  do 
not  come  into  the  I'cigion  of  Chi'istian  art.  'I'licy  bcslong 
to  the  fantastic  cat(!gory  of  relics.  The  earli(;st  (Jhiistian 
art  of  which  we  have  remains  in  the  catacondjs  is  entiiely 
after  the  model  of  contemporary  Greek  and  Roman  painting. 
Its  subjects  are  chiefly  Biblical  or  allegorical — Dimiel  in 
the  Lion's  Den,  the  Good  Shepherd,  etc. ;  and  its  spirit  is 
cheerful.  During  the  days  of  persecution  the  Christians  did 
not  take  pleasure  in  the  contemjdation  of  torture ;  nor  did 
they  then  represent  the  ascetic  type  of  face.  Pictures  of 
the  Crucifixion  come  later,  and  so  do  representations  of  fasting 


BYZANTINK    ART  185 

Raintfl  and  HufTcring  martyrH.  'I'lio  sfirono,  youtJiful  appear- 
ance of  JoHUH,  Horncl/iinoH  HyrribolJHed  by  OrplieuR,  or 
niofldlod  on  Uio  typo  of  Ajiollo,  givoH  place  in  the  By/./uitine 
period  to  the  exalted  Chrint,  tlie  Kirij^  on  IHh  tlitone, 
gloriouH,  rri)i,j':Hti(;,  iiwfiil  t*;  ;i,p|)r(»ac,li.  TIk;  wiiJIh  oi" 
liyzantirie  (^hiirchen  were  decorated  in  fr(;Hc;o  or  inoKaif, 
witli  iiiiiHtriitioiiH  of  Old  and  N(;w  'I'eHtainent  hiHtory.  TIk; 
purpOHe  of  thJH  wa,H  (!dijf;a,tiotial,  in  (jidef  thii,t,  an  St.  NihiH 
Hfu'd,  " 'J'hoHe  who  could  not  r(!ij,d  the  ScriptiiniH  could  l(;i(,rn 
from  tljo  yjIcturcH  tiie  good  af^tioiiH  of  thone  who  hiivc; 
Hcrved  (hxl  hiithfully."  l*'of  tfi(5  name  reason  BcencH  of 
nwutyrdorn,  which  th(j  c;uly  (JhrintianH  had  avoided,  were 
now  njndored  with  hiidjiiJ  reahHrn.  Originally  the  (jhject 
in  view  wan  aH  innoc(5nt  !i,H  oui'  modern  illuHtrated  liihlcH, 
H(;}iool-rooni  pictiUfjH,  atid  iniHHion-hall  lantern  (ixhihitioriH. 
Tinm  UvhI  tlie  jiicture  of  ChriHt  waH  worHhipp(;d,  tiien 
picturoH  of  the  Virgin  and  of  saintH  cfirne  in  for  Himilar 
adoration. 

Althotigh  the  ieono(;ljiHtic  dinputf!  hid  to  !i,n  ininKuiW! 
doHtnietion  of  j)ictureH,  it  docH  iiol<  w^em  ])roh;i,l»l(!  th;i,t  truuiy 
valu;i,hlc  workH  of  art  w(5r(!  loHt  to  the  world  in  tluH  way.  Hut 
the  vi(;tory  of  th(!  iiruige  worHhif)perH  gave  a  gi(!at  impulne 
to  the  artH  of  painting  ;i,nd  moHiu'e  woi-k  which  w;i,h  followed 
by  a  V(iritablo  renaiHHance  in  tin;  (liccU  ('fiurcfi.  Here, 
tlien,  we  como  upon  oru!  of  the  pointn  at  which  it  \h  incum- 
})ent  uy)on  ufl  to  free  our  inindH  from  the  narrowncsHH 
(if  W(!Ht(!rn  pi-epoKHCHHionH  if  wc;  woidd  underHtand  the 
V(!ry  (hlforent  courHe  of  Ohurcli  hiHtory  in  th(!  KiiHt.  We 
jue  aceuHtomed  to  regJM'd  the  period  hcttwcen  th(5  Hliort, 
brilli;i,nt  (ipoch  of  ('IuuIoh  the  OrcjiJ,  ;ind  Alciiin  on  th(; 
Ooid-ineidi  and  King  Alfrcsd  Jind  I'csdc  in  Mngi.ind  on  the 
one  hand,  and  tlie  gr(!)i,t  reviv;i,l  und(!r-  St.  {'(iriuu-d,  with  the 
BubHequ(!nt  riwc  of  H('JioI;i,Htic,iHrn  ;i,nd  (Jothic  !i,rcliit(;ctur(' 
on  the  other,  aH  contiiining  (!mph)i,tic.a,lly  "  th(!  dii,ri<  JigcH." 
No  doubt  th(!  Iji,ni|)  of  loariiing  wan  l<<'pt  a,live  by  th(! 
monl<H  (3ven  (hiring  tliin  gloomy  p<;riod  ;  hut  tli(!  IIa,m(!  did 
littU;  more  than  hIhmI  a,  mild  radiajKu;  through  tlu;  dim 
cloiHtors.      Any  MS.  decoration  of   this  p(!rio(l  in  J5y/antine 


186  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

in  character.  Western  art  was  dead.  But  at  this  very- 
time  art  was  reviving  in  the  East  and  attaining  to  a  life 
and  a  freedom  which  it  had  never  reached  before.  It 
might  have  advanced  still  further,  had  not  the  Crusades, 
which  promised  deliverance  for  the  holy  sites  of  the  East 
from  the  desecration  of  the  infidel,  brought  ruin  and  misery 
to  the  Greek  Christiana, 


CHAPTER  III 

THE   ICONOCLASTIC   REFORMS 

(a)  Nicepliorus,  Antirrhetica  ;  Theophanes,  Chronographia ;  Letters 
of  Popes  in  Mansi,  xii  and  xiii. 

(6)  Finlay,  History  of  the  Byzantine  Empire,  Book  i. ;  Hefele, 
History  of  the  Councils,  Eng.  trans.,  vol.  v.  ;  Freeman, 
Historical  Essays,  Series  iii.,  1892  ;  Oman,  Byzantine  Empire, 
1886  ;  Bury,  History  of  the  Later  Roman  Empire,  vol.  ii.,  1889. 

Nothing  is  more  remarkable  in  the  history  of  the  Eastern 
portion  of  the  Eoman  Empire  centred  at  Constantinople 
than  its  repeated  revival  after  what  may  well  have 
appeared  to  be  hopeless  decay  and  ruinous  devastation. 
We  shall  make  a  great  mistake  if  we  think  of  it  as  simply 
characterised  by  Gibbon's  classic  title.  This  is  by  no 
means  merely  the  story  of  a  "  Decline  and  Fall."  First  we 
have  Constantine  founding  his  new  city  on  the  Bosphorus 
and  going  far  to  make  it  the  centre  of  the  civilised  world. 
Then,  although  the  Germanic  tribes  repeatedly  sacked  and 
desolated  Old  Eome,  they  could  do  little  more  in  the  East 
than  make  raids  into  Greece,  leaving  Constantinople  on  one 
side  as  beyond  their  reach.  Two  hundred  years  after  the 
founding  of  this  city  which  stood  for  all  that  was  most 
splendid  and  powerful  in  Eastern  Europe,  in  a  time  of 
revival,  while  the  great  General  BeHsarius  was  regaining 
the  lost  territory  of  the  empire  in  Africa  and  the  south- 
west, his  master  Justinian  was  beautifying  Constantinople 
and  other  Greek  cities  with  unparalleled  architectural 
splendour.  Another  hundred  years  passes,  and  we  see  the 
Eastern  Empire  ravaged  by  Persia  and  brought  to  the  brink 
of  ruin.    Then  the  gifted  Heraclius  turns  the  tide  of  victory, 

187 


188  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

wrests  the  stolen  provinces  from  the  hands  of  the  invader, 
and  presses  far  into  his  enemy's  territory  with  crushing 
effect.  No  sooner  has  this  military  miracle  been  achieved 
than  a  new  and  totally  unexpected  enemy  comes  up  from 
the  desert  and  defeats  the  victorious  Byzantine  power,  to 
the  amazement  and  dismay  of  the  empire.  The  Arabs, 
tired  by  the  new  creed  of  Islam,  tear  off  Syria,  Egypt,  and 
southern  regions  farther  West,  leaving  only  a  mutilated 
torso  to  represent  the  ancient  Eoman  Empire.  Yet  in  vain 
does  tlie  mighty  flood  gather  to  sweep  this  remnant  away. 
Constantinople  still  remains  a  virgin  fortress,  impregnable. 
Miserable  times  follow.  The  Mohammedans  raid  Asia  Minor ; 
tribes  from  the  Danubian  countries  pour  over  Macedonia  and 
Greece ;  the  empire  is  virtually  reduced  to  the  limits  of 
the  one  city  of  Constantinople.  Now  indeed  it  might 
appear  as  though  the  ancient  Eoman  dominion  in  the  East 
were  approaching  final  dissolution.  But  that  is  not  to  be 
its  fate.  It  has  been  called  "  effete,"  but  still  it  displays 
marvellous  vitality. 

What  is  the  explanation  of  this  remarkable  vitality  ? 
In  part,  the  persistence  of  the  empire  through  all  the 
vicissitudes  of  fortune  is  to  be  attributed  to  its  just 
judicature  and  skilful  administration  of  government.  The 
Eoman  law  was  well  applied  all  through  these  changing 
times,  and  the  machinery  of  government  was  worked  with 
scientific  exactness.  Nowhere  else  in  the  world  was  the 
art  of  government  so  ably  practised.  Constantinople  was 
the  centre  of  civilisation  in  politics  as  well  as  in  art  and 
letters.  Still,  civilisation  cannot  be  self-supporting.  If 
the  vigour  of  the  "early  caliphs  had  been  preserved  by 
their  successors  no  human  power  could  have  saved  the 
world  from  the  overthrow  of  the  Christian  religion  as 
well  as  tlie  destruction  of  European  culture.  Even  after 
the  ardour  of  missionary  zeal  among  the  Mohammedans 
had  cooled  they  were  still  formidable,  and  when  rein- 
forced by  the  Turks,  almost  invincible.  Then  deliverance 
came  from  one  of  the  most  powerful  men  of  history.  It 
has   been    pointed    out    that    while    Charles    Martel    has 


THE  ICONOCLASTIC  REFORMS         189 

been  immortalised  for  having  checked  a  Moorish  raid  in 
the  West  that  had  nearly  spent  its  force,  and  that  could 
never  have  resulted  in  the  permanent  subjection  of  Europe, 
a  much  greater  man  who  achieved  a  much  greater  feat 
has  missed  his  laurels,  partly  because  his  action  as  a 
heretic  offended  the  Church,  but  no  doubt  partly  also 
because  his  achievements  were  carried  out  in  the  East. 
This  man  was  Leo  the  Isaurian — Leo  iii. — the  hero  of 
Finlay's  Byzantine  history,  a  rough,  uneducated  peasant 
from  a  remote  part  of  Asia  Minor,  who  is  said  to  have  first 
attracted  attention  by  bringing  a  present  of  sheep  to  the 
reigning  emperor,  but  a  man  of  genius,  vigour,  and 
character. 

Leo  founded  a  dynasty  of  able  rulers  who  held  the 
Eastern  Empire  together  for  generations,  while  the  last 
relics  of  the  Western  Empire  were  in  the  melting-pot,  out 
of  which  issued  the  nations  of  modern  Europe.  His  own 
mighty  task  was  to  put  an  effectual  and  final  stop  to  the 
Arab  encroachments.  Syria  and  Egypt  were  lost  for 
ever;  but  Leo  retained  and  strengthened  all  the  empire 
north  of  the  Mediterranean,  remodelled  the  system  of 
government,  and  established  a  military  power  that  put  an 
end  to  the  danger  of  the  swamping  of  Christianity  by  Islam. 
Here  then  is  a  man  deserving  of  the  highest  honour  by  the 
Church,  since  in  proving  himself  the  saviour  of  the  empire  he 
became  also  the  deliverer  of  the  Church,  with  which  it  was 
to  so  great  an  extent  conterminous.  In  spite  of  this  fact, 
his  own  action  in  the  Church  called  jiown  on  his  head 
execrations  instead  of  benedictions.  Let  us  proceed  to 
examine  this  remarkable  phenomenon. 

Leo  seized  the  imperial  power  at  a  crisis  of  confusion  in 
the  year  716.  Ten  years  later  he  issued  an  edict  ordering 
the  destruction  of  the  sacred  pictures.  It  has  been  com- 
monly supposed  that  he  first  ordered  them  to  be  raised  to  a 
higher  position  on  the  walls  so  that  the  people  could  not 
reach  up  to  kiss  them.  But  the  only  authority  for  this 
opinion  is  the  Latin  translation  of  the  life  of  the  monk 
Stephen,  on  which  Baronius  bases  his  assertion  of  it.     On 


190  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN   CHURCHES 

the  other  hand,  Hefele  has  demonstrated  that  this  must  be 
a  mistake.  For  one  thing,  many  of  the  pictures  were 
frescoes  that  could  not  be  moved.  There  is  a  letter  from 
the  pope  protesting  against  the  destruction  of  images 
which  we  must  date  earlier  than  the  year  730  ;  but  that 
year  is  the  date  commonly  assigned  for  a  second  edict 
which  is  taken  to  be  the  earliest  order  for  the  demolition  of 
the  pietui'os.  The  decree  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
widely  operative.  But  one  of  the  first  actions,  if  not  the 
very  first,  taken  in  execution  of  the  emperor's  orders  led  to 
serious  trouble.  It  was  a  daring  deed,  for  it  was  the 
destruction  of  the  most  conspicuous  and  in  some  respects 
the  most  sacred  of  all  the  pictures.  This  was  a  representa- 
tion of  Christ  over  the  great  brass  gates  at  Constantinople, 
which  was  reputed  to  work  miraculous  cures.  Officials 
mounted  a  ladder  in  spite  of  the  screaming  protests  of  a 
mob  of  women,  and  one  of  them  rudely  smashed  his  axe 
into  the  face.  Thereupon  the  exasperated  women  seized  the 
ladder,  flung  the  sacrilegious  officials  to  the  ground,  and 
murdered  them  on  the  spot.  Other  scenes  of  violence 
followed  in  various  places. 

Now  the  question  is,  What  led  Leo  to  take  this  step 
and  so  to  come  into  conflict  with  his  people's  religion? 
The  action  was  his  own ;  if  it  was  a  reformation,  it  was  an 
imperial,  not  a  popular  reformation.  The  author  of  the 
article  on  Leo  iii.  in  Smith's  Dictionary  of  Biography  seems 
to  sympathise  with  the  old  orthodox  view  of  the  case, 
according  to  which  the  emperor  was  a  heretic  denying  the 
actual  humanity  of  Christ,  and  therefore  the  possibility  of 
representing  our  Lord  by  any  picture.  This  was  a  charge 
frequently  brought  against  the  Iconoclasts  by  the  defenders 
of  images.  It  has  been  pointed  out  that  Leo's  old  home  in 
Isauria  was  a  seat  of  Monophysitism.  But  we  have  no 
proof  whatever  of  the  existence  of  this  subtle  theological 
motive  at  the  basis  of  Leo's  policy,  although  it  may  be 
allowed  that  the  atmosphere  of  the  church  of  his  youth 
would  liave  predisposed  him  to  turn  with  disgust  from  the 
materialism  of  the  popular  religion.     We  must  look  deeper 


THE   ICONOCLASTIC    REFORMS  191 

into  the  history  of  the  whole  question  in  order  to  under- 
stand the  emperor's  reasons  for  his  revolutionary  policy. 
More  than  a  century  before  this,  Serenus,  bishop  of  Mar- 
seilles, flung  all  the  pictures  out  of  his  church,  an  act 
of  vandalism  which  drew  down  upon  his  head  a  letter  of 
mild  rebuke  from  Gregory  the  Great.  The  pope  then 
took  occasion  to  explain  the  use  of  pictures  and  to  guard 
against  the  idolatrous  abuse  of  them.  "  You  ought  not  to 
have  broken  what  was  put  up  in  the  churches,  not  for 
adoration,"  he  says,  "  but  merely  for  the  promotion  of  rever- 
ence. It  is  one  thing  to  worship  an  image,  and  another  to 
learn  represented  in  the  image  what  we  ought  to  worship. 
For  what  the  Scriptures  are  for  those  who  can  read,  that 
a  picture  is  for  those  who  are  unable  to  read;  for  in 
this  also  the  uneducated  see  in  what  way  they  have  to 
walk.  In  it  they  read  who  are  not  acquainted  with  the 
Scriptures."  ^ 

No  statement  of  the  case  could  be  more  unexcep- 
tionable. The  stiffest  Puritan  would  be  hard  put  to 
it  to  answer  such  an  argument.  Not  only  stained-glass 
windows,  but  illustrated  Bibles  and  lantern  services  are 
justified  to-day  on  similar  grounds.  But  the  pope's  argu- 
ment is  one  thing,  and  the  people's  practice  another. 
In  point  of  fact,  throughout  the  East  at  the  time  of  Leo 
the  pictures  were  worshipped.  The  physical  act  of  kissing 
them  was  called  worship,  and  this  act  was  made  illegal 
by  the  iconoclastic  emperors.  But  over  and  above  that, 
pictures  and  relics  were  often  treated  as  fetishes  and 
venerated  for  their  supposed  miraculous  cures.  No  doubt 
there  would  be  all  gradations  from  the  aesthetic  pursuit 
of  art  among  the  cultured  and  the  simple  contemplation 
of  pictorial  lessons  on  the  part  of  the  devout,  to  the 
grossest  idolatry  and  magic-mongery  among  the  more 
degraded  and  superstitious.  It  was  against  the  popular 
adoration  of  the  images  that  Leo  was  fighting. 

We  must  remember  that  at  this  very  time  the  em- 
peror's   great     rival    was    the    caliph,    and    the     standing 

1  Lib.  ix.  Ep.  9. 


192  THE  GREEK   AND   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

menace  to  Christianity  the  religion  of  Islam  which  made  it 
tlie  first  duty  of  the   faithful  to  extirpate  idolatry.     The 
case  for  Mohammedanism  was  strengthened  by  the  exist- 
ence of  idolatry  in  the  Christian  Church,  and  a  wise  Chris- 
tian ruler  might  well  be  anxious  to  remove  that  scandal 
from  his  cause.     Only  two  years  before  Leo  took  action 
the    caliph    was    vigorously    engaged    m    destroying    the 
pictures    among  the  Christian  churches  in  his  dominion. 
Naturally  enough  this  similarity  of   policy  led  the  image 
worshippers  to  accuse  their  fellow  Christian  Iconoclasts  of 
treasonable  connections  with  the  Mohammedans.     At  the 
seventh  oecumenical  council  (II  Nicsea,  A.D.  787)  the  monk 
John  accused  Constantino,  bishop  of  Nacolia  in  Phrygia,  of 
collusion    with  the   caliph.     This   bishop,    who  had   been 
actively  engaged  in  tearing  down  the  images  in  his  own 
district,  came  to  Constantinople  to  consult  the  Patriarch 
Germanus  on  the  subject.     He  got  no  encouragement  in 
that  quarter.     Germanus  was  a  staunch  supporter  of  image 
worship,  and  in  the  case  of  this  bold  bishop  we  have  a  rare 
instance  of  independence  on  the  part  of  the  head  ecclesiastic 
of  the  Greek  Church  at  Constantinople  in  opposition  to  the 
emperor,  which  is  in  marked  contrast  to  the  too  common 
subservience  of  the  Constantinople   patriarchs.      But   that 
fact  makes  it  all  the  more  remarkable  that  Leo  should  have 
80  acted  as  to  stir  up  a  hornets'  nest  just  when  he  was 
consoHdating  his  power  for  the   security   of   the  empire. 
The  fair  and  reasonable  explanation  is  that  which  is  also 
most  simple  and  straightforward,  namely,  that  we  should 
accept  the  emperor's  own  declared  motive  as  genuine.      He 
rega riled  image  worsliip  as  idolatry.     He  saw  that  Chris- 
tianity  as  a   spiritual  faith  was  becoming  swamped   and 
drowned  in  the  grossest  superstition.     The  pictures  were 
actually  idols.     The  people  were  satisfied  to  kiss  and  adore 
them;  in   illness   they    resorted    to  them    for    miraculous 
cures ;  if  they  had  any  other  religious  practice  to  which 
they   attached    weight,    it    \^5as    the    treasuring    of    relics. 
I*erhap8  the  reason  why  Leo  did  not  attack  this  also  was 
that   it  was   practised  in   private.       The   relics   were   the 


THE  ICONOCLASTIC  REFORMS        193 

Christian  Lares  and  Penates.  They  were,  like  Eachel's 
teraphini,  survivals  in  the  home  of  a  kind  of  superstition 
not  so  openly  observed  in  public.  But  the  pictures  were 
in  the  churches  or  out  in  the  open  air,  and  the  adoration 
of  them  was  public.  Here  was  an  overt  public  super- 
stition which  could  be  directly  attacked.  That  this  is  not 
too  harsh  a  verdict  on  the  popular  image  worship  is  proved 
by  the  serious  commotion  that  the  emperor's  policy  aroused. 
If  no  more  than  Gregory  the  Great's  didactic  use  of  pictures 
had  been  in  practice,  people  would  not  have  been  so  pro- 
foundly stirred  at  the  removal  of  their  lesson  illustrations. 
What  roused  them  to  fury  was  the  idea  that  the  emperor 
was  taking  away  their  idols,  their  gods.  Thus  this  very 
passion  of  opposition  justified  Leo's  theory  of  the  system 
he  was  attacking.  In  a  word,  Leo  was  a  reformer,  a 
protestant,  a  man  who  saw  the  fatal  character  of  the 
materialistic  religion  of  his  day,  and  endeavoured  to  alter  it. 

Nevertheless  Leo  made  two  serious  mistakes.  First, 
he  acted  solely  on  his  own  initiative  and  by  force.  His 
reformation  was  purely  a  State  action  ;  there  was  no  popular 
movement  supporting  it.  Such  a  reformation,  coming  on  to 
the  Church  from  without,  does  not  stir  up  an  internal 
revival  of  better  things.  Secondly,  it  was  negative,  only 
destructive ;  it  did  nothing  to  substitute  a  new  living 
religion  for  the  old  superstition.  Leo  was  no  Luther.  It 
is  the  positive  revival  of  religion  alone  that  can  effect 
genuine  reformation. 

Still,  while  we  must  admit  these  two  damaging  factors 
of  the  case,  we  may  hold  that  the  emperor's  motive  was 
good  and  honest  and  enlightened.  In  point  of  fact,  there 
was  some  revival  of  religion  under  the  iconoclastic  em- 
perors, and  it  was  accompanied  by  a  betterment  of  morals. 
The  period  that  followed  Leo's  reforms  was  a  real  im- 
provement on  that  which  preceded  it.  Mr.  Bury  holds 
that  the  Iconoclasts  should  not  be  regarded  as  Puritans ; 
that  it  would  be  more  correct  to  consider  them  to  be 
Eationalists.^  Certainly  they  did  not  anticipate  the  grim 
^  Bury,  History  of  Later  Eoinan  Empire,  vol.  ii.  p.  429. 
13 


194  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

rigour  which  is  associated  with  Puritanism  in  Sir  Walter 
Scott's  novels.  The  reverse  was  the  case ;  they  introduced 
fray  living  into  court  and  city,  and  set  their  faces  against 
the  ascetic  ideal  cherished  by  the  monks.  Nevertheless 
they  were  not  unlike  the  true  English  Turitans  of  Eliza- 
beth's time,  the  men  who  discarded  "  vain  traditions "  in 
order  to  have  the  Church  governed  by  "  the  pure  word  of 
God,"  and  who  opposed  the  more  materialistic  ritual  in 
favour  of  inward  religion. 

It  has  been  maintained  that  one  aim  of  Leo  and  his 
successors  in  suppressing  image  worship  was  to  oppose  the 
influence  of  the  monks.  Now  it  is  a  fact  that,  while  the 
parish  priests  for  the  most  part  submitted  tamely  to  the 
imperial  orders,  as  became  government  officials,  the  monks 
stoutly  resisted  them,  for  it  was  in  the  monasteries  that  the 
liberty  of  the  Chm'ch  was  cherished. 

Besides,  while  the  monks  opposed  imperial  interference 
in  ecclesiastical  affairs,  they  were  out  of  favour  with  the 
authorities  on  other  grounds  also.  Monasticism  was  the 
deadliest  enemy  of  militarism,  and  that  in  two  ways.  The 
monks  would  not  fight ;  and  therefore  the  monasteries  were 
draining  the  empire  of  a  large  part  of  its  able-bodied 
citizens,  and  these  especially  the  men  of  grit.  At  the 
same  time  their  celibate  life  was  keeping  down  the  popula- 
tion, and  so,  as  has  been  pointed  out  earlier  in  this  book, 
rendering  the  provinces  too  weak  to  withstand  the  onrush 
of  teeming  multitudes  of  more  prolific  races  that  hovered 
on  their  borders. 

While,  however,  all  this  is  worthy  of  consideration,  it 
will  not  account  for  Iconoclasm,  for  Leo  could  have  found 
other  means  of  opposing  monasticism,  and  means  which 
wuuld  not  have  enHsted  the  populace  in  its  favour.  It 
was  bad  policy  to  select  a  ground  of  attack  which  involved 
a  direct  assault  on  the  religion  of  the  people.  Turn  where 
we  may  for  an  explanation,  we  are  driven  back  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  iconoclastic  enterprise  was  a  reformation 
movement,  the  aim  of  which  was  to  save  Christianity  from 
degenerating  into  the  merely  mechanical  performances  of 


THE  ICONOCLASTIC  REFORMS         195 

idolatry.  It  may  be  remarked  as  a  further  confirmation  of 
this  position  that  both  Leo  and  his  son  Constantine  opposed 
Maryolatry.^ 

The  execution  of  Leo's  orders  met  with  violent  opposi- 
tion ;  but  as  this  was  combined  with  resistance  to  a  harsh 
and  burdensome  system  of  taxation,  it  is  difficult  to  appor- 
tion the  relative  forces  of  the  two  influences.  There  were 
risings  in  Italy  and  in  Greece.  The  imperial  fleet  in  the 
Cyclades  mutinied,  and  was  accompanied  by  one  of  the 
imperial  armies  in  an  attack  on  Constantinople,  carrying 
with  it  a  man  named  Cosmas,  whom  the  rebels  elected 
emperor.  The  expedition  turned  out  to  be  a  disastrous 
failure.  Leo  defeated  the  fleet  on  its  approach  to  Con- 
stantinople by  means  of  "  Greek  Fire."  The  commander 
Agallianos  plunged  fully  armed  into  the  sea  and  was 
drowned.  Cosmas  was  taken  alive  and  executed.  So  was 
another  leader.  But  Leo  treated  the  rest  of  the  insurgents 
with  leniency.  His  action  throughout  was  milder  than 
that  of  Constantine,  his  son  and  successor. 

Writers  of  later  times  ^  have  charged  Leo  with  one 
act  of  inconceivable  barbarity.  Near  the  bronze  bazaar 
at  Constantinople  was  an  imperial  institution  consisting 
of  a  library  and  a  theological  college,  presided  over  by 
a  scholar  entitled  the  "  Oecumenical  Doctor,"  with  whom 
twelve  learned  men  were  associated  for  the  instruction  of 
the  students,  the  whole  body  being  supported  from  the 
public  funds.  Leo  was  in  the  habit  of  consulting  these 
professors,  and  he  naturally  turned  to  them  to  join  him 
in  his  policy  of  reform.  It  would  have  been  a  great  point 
to  have  gained  a  verdict  of  theological  science  from  such 
an  authority.  That  however  was  refused  him.  Then, 
according  to  the  incredible  story  of  the  later  writers,  the 
emperor  had  faggots  heaped  against  the  building,  set 
them  on  fire,  and  so  burnt  the  library  and  with  it  the 
"  (Ecumenical  Doctor  "  and  his  twelve  colleagues.  No  con- 
temporary writer  mentions  any  such  atrocity.     Theophanes 

*  For  proofs  see  authorities  cited  in  Bury,  op.  cit.  vol.  ii.  p.  428,  note  1. 
'  e.g.  Zonaras  and  George  the  Sinner. 


106  THE   GREEK   AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

merely  remarks  curtly  that  Leo  put  an  end  to  "pious 
education  "  and  shut  up  the  educational  institutions.^ 

In  other  matters  Leo  now  proceeded  further  towards 
what  we  know  as  Protestantism.  He  gave  up  the  inter- 
cession of  the  saints  and  the  worship  of  relics.^  At  first 
he  had  only  interfered  with  pictures  outside  the  churches ; 
subsequently  he  carried  on  his  Iconoclasm  within  their 
walls.  A  later  decree  forbade  anybody  even  to  make  a 
picture  of  a  saint,  martyr,  or  angel  ;  all  these  things  were 
accursed.     This  was  a  condemnation  of  sacred  art  in  itself. 

It  was  a  great  annoyance  to  Leo  that  Germanus  the 
patriarch  of  Constantinople  stoutly  opposed  his  reforming 
action,  and  quite  contrary  to  precedent  for  this  man  to  be 
showing  a  spirit  of  independence  more  like  that  of  his 
brother  at  Eorae  than  anything  the  Eastern  Empire  was 
accustomed  to.  The  emperor  sent  for  Germanus  (a.d.  729) 
and  expostulated  with  him,  but  in  vain.  Leo  even  appears 
to  have  tried  to  entangle  the  intrepid  old  man  in  a  charge 
of  treason ;  but  this  unworthy  device  also  failed.^  In 
January,  A.D.  730,  Leo  held  a  Silentium^  in  support  of  his 
policy.  This  wa-s  a  civil  council  that  had  no  authority 
over  the  Church.  Nevertheless  it  was  impossible  for  the 
patriarch  to  retain  his  office  in  face  of  the  government's 
disapproval,  and  therefore  he  quietly  retired.  Here  we 
sec  the  difference  between  the  East  and  the  West.  A 
Eoman  pontiff  would  have  held  his  ground  and  defied  the 
emperor  to  do  his  worst.  Germanus  was  as  intrepid  as 
any  pope.  But  it  is  one  thing  to  be  defiant  to  a  distant 
potentate  when  supported  by  enthusiastic  followers  in  a 
position  of  virtual  independence,  which  was  the  case  with 
tlic  pope  in  the  West ;  and  quite  another  thing  to  show 
independence  under  the  very  shadow  of  the  imperial  palace 
in  the  East,  where  for  generations  the  Church  has  meekly 
submitted  to  the  patronage  of  the  State.  Germanus  never 
wavered  from  his  convinced  policy.  When,  at  last,  a 
venerable   man   ninety   years   old,  he   saw   that  he   could 

'  TheophaiRs,  i.  623.  ^  ^^^-^  ^   335^  ^  Ibid.  p.  626  fif. 

*  ».«.  A  consultative  assembly. 


THE  ICONOCLASTIC  REFORMS         197 

never  hope  to  give  effect  to  that  policy,  he  resigned  his 
office. 

Gregory  III.  was  now  pope  at  Eome.  He  had  sent  to 
Leo  for  the  emperor's  oonfirmation  of  his  election,  and  he 
had  not  been  consecrated  till  it  had  arrived.  This  was 
the  last  occasion  on  which  a  pope  solicited  approval  of 
his  appointment  from  Constantinople.  Now  Leo's  action 
in  the  iconoclastic  crusade  greatly  angered  Gregory,  who 
assembled  a  comicil  at  Eome  which  excommunicated  the 
Iconoclasts.  The  emperor  replied  by  confiscating  all  the 
pope's  estates  in  the  Eastern  provinces,  and  by  separating 
the  ecclesiastical  government  of  south  Italy,  Sicily,  and 
other  parts  farther  east  from  the  jurisdiction  of  Eome,'  and 
transferring  it  to  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople.  Gregory 
wrote  to  Germanus  saying  that  if  anybody  misuses  the 
words  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  were  only  directed 
against  idolatry,  "  we  can  only  hold  him  to  a  barking  dog." 
This  was  before  the  Silentium,  After  that  council  had 
been  followed  by  the  resignation  of  Germanus,  the  pope 
wrote  to  the  emperor  explaining  his  views  and  justifying 
the  use  of  images.  He  urged  that  this  did  not  involve 
idolatry.  The  Israelites  were  commanded  to  make  images 
of  cherubim.  Leo  had  compared  himself  to  Uzziah — he 
meant  Hezekiah,  who  destroyed  the  brazen  serpent.  "  Yes," 
says  Gregory,  "  Uzziah  was  your  brother,  and  like  you  he 
did  violence  to  the  priests."  ^ 

Leo  m.  died  in  the  year  741  and  was  succeeded  by  his 
son  Constantino  v.,  nicknamed  "  Copronymus,"  after  an 
infantile  misdemeanour  which  occurred  when  the  patriarch 
was  plunging  him  into  the  baptismal  font.^  The  name 
clung  to  him  in  later  years  and  was  used  as  an  encourage- 
ment for  the  foulest  calumnies  concerning  his  conduct.  No 
emperor  was  ever  bespattered  with  more  disgusting  accusa- 
tions, but  seeing  that  these  were  flung  at  him  by  bitter 
enemies  in  the  fury  of  the  iconoclastic  contest  no  historical 
value  can  be  attached  to  them.     The  devastating  plague 

^  Mausi,  xii.  p.  959  11.  ;  Hardouiii,  iv.  p.  1  ff. 
•  Theoplianes,  p.  616. 


198  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

whicli  swept  over  the  empire  and  reached  Constantinople  in 
747  was  regarded  by  the  populace  as  a  judgment  of  heaven 
on  the  sin  of  Iconoclasm.  Unfortunately  Constantine 
cannot  be  exonerated  from  the  charge  of  cruelty.  He  went 
to  greater  lengths  than  his  father  in  the  suppression  of 
image  worship,  and  even  carried  on  a  severe  persecution  to 
the  extent  of  torture.  The  protestant  spirit  of  the  icono- 
clastic movement  which  appeared  in  Leo  was  also  seen  in 
Constantine,  for  he  was  accused  of  rejecting  the  intercession 
of  the  Virgin  Mary,  though  it  was  allowed  that  he  called 
her  the  mother  of  God — as  would  be  expected  if  there  was 
any  connection  between  Iconoclasm  and  Monophysitism  ; 
and,  further,  he  was  charged  with  denying  the  transference 
of  the  merits  of  the  martyrs. 

Constantine  was  superseded  for  a  time  by  his  brother- 
in-law  Artavasdos,  who  was  acknowledged  by  the  pope  and 
who  restored  the  pictures  to  the  churches.  On  recovering 
his  power,  Constantine  had  the  eyes  of  Artavasdos  and  his 
two  sons  put  out  and  then  exhibited  the  miserable  men  in 
triumph  at  the  chariot  races,  after  which  they  were  im- 
prisoned in  a  monastery. 

Constantine  now  consolidated  his  government  and 
proved  himself  to  be  a  vigorous  ruler  in  Church  as  well 
as  in  State  affairs.  More  than  ever  the  ecclesiastical 
discipline  of  the  East  came  to  be  concentrated  at  Constanti- 
nople and  controlled  by  the  emperor.  He  ordered  the 
metropolitans  and  provincials  to  hold  provincial  synods, 
and  convoked  a  general  council  which  met  at  Constanti- 
nople in  the  year  754,  and  was  attended  by  338  bishops.^ 
But  though  this  was  probably  the  largest  Church  council 
that  had  ever  been  held,  the  patriarchs  of  Antioch,  Alex- 
andria, and  Jerusalem — being  now  in  the  Saracen  dominions 
— were  unable  to  attend  it ;  nor  were  any  bishops  from 
the  Western  Church  present.  It  could  not  therefore  be 
taken  as  an  oecumenical  council.  This  council  forbade  the 
employment  of  images  and  pictures  in  churches  as  a  pagan 
practice,  condemned  the  use  of  the  crucifix,  proscribed  "  the 

^  Theoplianes,  p.  654. 


THE   ICONOCLASTIC   REFORMS  199 

godless  art  of  painting,"  and  ordered  all  who  made  cruci- 
fixes or  pictures  for  worship  in  the  churches  to  be  excom- 
municated by  the  Church  and  punished  by  the  State.  Two 
years  later  image  worship  was  proscribed  with  greater 
severity  than  ever,  and  so  were  both  the  use  of  relics  and 
the  practice  of  praying  to  the  saints.  Many  monks  and 
clergy  were  banished  for  their  disobedience  to  these  orders ; 
some  were  flogged,  tortured,  and  mutilated. 

The  most  popular  defender  of  image  worship  was  the 
abbot  Stephen,  who  has  been  so  highly  honoured  in  the 
Greek  Church  as  a  saint  and  martyr  that  he  bears  the  name 
of  "  Stephen  the  younger  "  by  comparison  with  the  proto- 
martyr.  According  to  the  story  of  his  life  written  half  a 
century  later,  in  the  year  763  Constantine  Copronicus  sent 
an  order  to  this  monk,  who  was  resident  at  Mount  St. 
Auxentius,  to  sign  the  decree  of  the  Constantinople  council. 
On  his  refusal  he  was  dragged  by  soldiers  from  his  cave  and 
imprisoned  with  some  other  monks  for  six  days  without 
food.  Liberated  for  a  time,  he  was  seized  again  on  libellous 
charges,  dragged  once  more  from  his  cave,  beaten,  tortured, 
and  banished  to  the  island  of  Proconnesus  in  the  Propontis. 
Here  a  number  of  monks,  driven  from  their  cells  by  the 
persecution,  gathered  round  their  hero  and  leader.  Thus 
his  place  of  exile  was  becoming  a  rallying  point  for  the 
forces  of  opposition  to  the  government  policy,  or,  as  it  would 
be  regarded  at  headquarters,  a  nest  of  sedition.  So  Stephen 
was  arrested  a  third  time,  bound  hand  and  foot,  and  carried 
off  to  Constantinople,  where  he  was  flung  into  the  great 
prison  of  the  Praetorium,  together  with  342  mutilated 
monks,  some  of  whom  had  had  their  ears,  noses,  or  hands 
cut  off,  their  eyes  gouged  out,  or  their  beards  smeared  with 
pitch  and  fired.  The  saint  turned  the  prison  into  a 
monastery  for  worship  and  meditation.  He  was  put  on  his 
trial  and  condemned  to  death.  A  saying  attributed  to 
Constantine  may  help  to  account  for  the  vindictive  fury 
with  which  Stephen  was  treated.  Seeing  how  popular  the 
monk  was  and  how  obstinately  he  maintained  his  cause, 
Constantine  is  reported  to  have  declared  that  Stephen  was 


200  THE   GREEK   AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

emperor  and  that  it  was  only  this  man  who  was  obeyed. 
Thereupon — as  in  the  case  of  Henry  li.'s  impatient  ex- 
clamation about  Thomas  h  Becket — obsequious  attendants 
took  action.  The  imperial  bodyguard  dashed  into  the 
prison,  dragged  the  bold  monk  out  into  the  street,  and 
there  battered  him  to  death  with  clubs  and  stones.^ 

Kuthless  conduct  such  as  this  provoked  fierce  opposition 
on  the  part  of  the  image  worshippers.  The  patriarch  of 
Constantinople  was  suspected  of  taking  part  in  a  con- 
spiracy against  tlie  emperor.  He  was  deposed,  tried,  and 
condemned  to  death.  Thereupon  he  confessed  himself  an 
Iconoclast ;  but  no  mercy  was  shown  him.  He  was  set  on 
an  ass  with  his  face  towards  the  tail  and  conducted  in  this 
insulting  way  to  the  amphitheatre,  where  he  was  beheaded. 

The  persecution  had  now  become  much  more  than  an 
iconoclastic  reformation.  It  had  developed  into  a  brutal 
attack  on  monasticism.  The  victims  were  no  longer  painted 
pictures ;  they  were  living  men.  As  at  the  English  Ee- 
formation,  there  was  a  "  dissolution  of  monasteries."  But 
this  was  less  general,  and  more  cruel.  "Where  the  monks 
were  turned  out  of  their  monasteries,  these  buildings  were 
converted  into  taverns.  Constantino  degraded  himself  in 
his  attempt  to  degrade  his  ecclesiastical  enemies.  He  com- 
pelled a  number  of  monks  to  march  round  the  circus  at 
Constaninople  hand  in  hand  with  women — either  nuns  or 
persons  of  less  respectable  character ;  ^  it  is  not  clear  which. 

1  Fita  Stephani  in  Analeeta,  pp.  546  ff.      Hefele  admits  that  this  is 
largely  legendary  [Hist,  of  Councils,  v.  p.  323). 

*  Theophanes,  p.  676 ;  Niccphorus,  p.  83  ;  Zouaras,  xv.  5. 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE  RESTORATION  OF  IMAGE  WORSHIP 

(a)  Nicepliorus,  Antirrhetica ;  Theophanes,  Chronocjrafhia ;  John 
of  Damascus  (Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers) ;  Theodore  of 
Studium  (Migne,  xcix.) ;  Mansi,  xiii. 

(6)  Finlay,  Hist.  Byzantine  Empire,  Book  i. ;  Hefele,  History  of 
the  Councils,  Eng.  Trans.,  vol.  v. ;  Bury,  Later  Rom.  Empire, 
vol.  ii.,  1889  ;  Alice  Gardner,  St.  Theodore  of  Studium,  1905. 

The  war  of  the  Byzantine  emperors  against  image  worship 
falls  into  two  periods,  being  broken  by  an  interval  of  a 
generation  during  which  the  practice  was  revived  and 
encouraged  by  the  government.  The  first  period,  consist- 
ing of  the  reigns  of  Leo  the  Isaurian  and  his  son  Constan- 
tino Copronicus,  lasted  for  nearly  half  a  century  (from 
Leo's  first  decree  in  a.d.  726  to  the  death  of  Constantino 
in  775).  This  was  followed  by  thirty-eight  years  of  peace 
to  the  image  worshippers,  when  the  custom  so  dear  to  the 
hearts  of  the  monks  and  the  populace  flourished  again  under 
the  favour  of  the  court  as  well  as  with  the  unvarying 
approval  of  the  Church.  Then  another  strong  emperor, 
Leo  the  Armenian,  returned  to  the  example  of  his  name- 
sake from  Isauria  and  renewed  the  attack  on  the  pictures, 
and  his  policy  was  continued  by  his  two  successors ;  but 
this  second  iconoclastic  campaign  only  lasted  for  twenty- 
nine  years  (a.d.  813-842),  during  most  of  which  it  was 
carried  on  very  mildly ;  and  in  the  end  image  worship  was 
effectually  restored.  It  has  since  continued  for  more  than 
a  thousand  years  down  to  our  own  time,  and  it  is  now  one 
of  the  chief  characteristics  of  the  Greek  Church.  In  other 
words,  the  premature    reformation,  twice    attempted,  and 

801 


202  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

each  time  successful  as  a  government  measure,  never  laid 
hold  of  the  Church,  and  ultimately  it  failed  entirely,  the 
old  order  re-establishing  itself  as  completely  as  though 
nothing  had  ever  happened  to  interfere  with  it.  Therefore 
we  must  regard  Tconoclasm  as  an  episode,  not  as  a  stage  in 
the  development  of  Church  history.  Nevertheless  it  is 
extremely  suggestive,  for  both  the  attack  on  image  worship 
and  the  defence  are  symptomatic ;  by  means  of  them  we 
can  learn  much  about  the  actual  condition  of  Christendom 
in  the  East  during  a  little-studied  period.  The  iconoclastic 
emperors,  for  the  most  part,  were  strong  rulers  who  success- 
fully defended  the  empire  against  the  encroachment  of 
foreign  powers  and  who  maintained  good  order  within  its 
borders.  During  their  reigns  the  law  was  justly  adminis- 
tered ;  security  of  life  and  property — except  in  the  case 
of  the  persecuted  monks — was  well  guarded ;  and  the 
morals  of  the  people  were  higher  than  at  any  other  time  in 
the  history  of  the  Eastern  Church.  On  the  other  hand — 
and  here  we  come  to  the  paradox  of  the  situation — the 
defence  of  image  worship  was  carried  on  with  genuine 
religious  motives  on  the  part  of  the  ecclesiastical  leaders. 
The  most  cultivated  and  devoted  Churchmen  of  the  day 
were  champions  of  what  the  Iconoclasts  stigmatised  as 
"  idolatry."  Further,  it  is  a  curious  fact  that,  while  each 
of  the  two  reforming  campaigns  was  initiated  by  a  powerful 
emperor — the  first  by  Leo  the  Isaurian  and  the  second  by 
Leo  the  Armenian,  each  of  the  reactionary  movements 
sprang  from  the  energy  of  a  woman — the  first  from  that  of 
the  Empress  Irene  and  the  second  from  that  of  the  Empress 
Theodora.  Unhappily  we  cannot  ascribe  to  these  ladies 
very  lofty  motives,  at  all  events  not  to  the  first  of  them. 

Leo  IV.,  the  son  and  successor  of  Constantine  Copro- 
nicus  (a.d.  775),  was  in  delicate  health  during  his  short 
reign,  and  when  he  died  leaving  as  his  heir  his  son  Con- 
stantine VI.,  Porphp'ogenitus — (born  in  the  purple,  i.e.  the 
purple  chamber  at  the  palace),  then  only  ten  years  old,  the 
regency  devolved  on  one  of  the  many  remarkable  women 
who  figure  so  conspicuously  in  the  history  of  the  Byzantine 


THE    RESTORATION    OF   IMAGE    WORSHIP  203 

Empire.  This  was  the  cultivated  and  brilliant  Athenian 
beauty,  Irene,  who  was  only  twenty-eight  years  of  age  when 
she  became  a  widow.  Of  Greek  blood,  she  found  in  her  own 
people  the  sympathy  and  support  she  wanted  in  order  to 
maintain  her  independence  against  her  late  husband's  family 
and  racial  connections.  The  iconoclastic  emperors  were  of 
Asiatic  origin — Isaurian  and  Armenian  ;  the  chief  supporters 
of  image  worship  were  found  among  the  Greeks.  It  was 
good  policy  therefore  for  Irene  to  favour  the  icons.  She 
was  a  woman  of  illimitable  ambition,  an  ambition  that 
smothered  the  instincts  of  motherhood.  Discovering  a 
conspiracy  against  her  power  instigated  by  her  brother-in- 
law,  Csesar  Nicephorus,  she  forced  Leo's  five  brothers  into 
the  priesthood  and  compelled  them  to  officiate  at  the  high 
altar  of  St.  Sophia  during  the  Christmas  ceremonies. 
Meanwhile  Irene  was  actively  engaged  in  the  restoration  of 
image  worship.  With  this  end  in  view  she  was  just  as 
Erastian  as  the  iconoclastic  emperors  had  been.  It  was 
all  government  action  and  forcible  interference  with  ecclesi- 
astical affairs.  Irene  deposed  the  patriarch  Paul  who  was  an 
Iconoclast,  and  nominated  for  the  head  of  the  Greek  Church 
Tarasius,  a  man  of  high  reputation  for  learning  and  char- 
acter, but  a  civilian,  the  secretary  of  the  imperial  cabinet. 
The  assembly  of  citizens  to  whom  the  empress  proposed  her 
candidate  elected  him  by  acclamation.  He  was  a  popular 
personage  and  the  empress's  policy  was  also  popular.  But 
had  the  case  been  otherwise  resistance  to  the  court  would 
have  been  regarded  as  preposterous.  Tarasius  was  reluctant 
to  take  office,  and  he  refused  to  do  so  till  his  election  had 
been  confirmed  by  a  council — consisting,  of  course,  of  image 
worshippers.  The  newly  appointed  patriarch  then  revived 
the  intercourse  between  Constantinople  and  the  other 
patriarchates  which  had  been  broken  off  during  the  domin- 
ance of  the  iconoclastic  emperors.  Thus  the  schism  was 
brought  to  an  end,  and  the  Roman  Pope  Hadrian  wrote  a 
joyful  letter  at  the  return  of  the  empire  to  the  fold  of 
orthodoxy,  in  the  course  of  which  lie  defended  the  practice 
of  image  worship  by  an  appeal  to  Scripture,  quoting,  among 


204  THE   GREEK   AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

other  instances,  the  case  of  Jacob  kissing  the  top  of  his 

staff.* 

Tarasius  desired  to  have  the  matter  finally  settled  by 
an  cecumenioal  council.  The  empress  agreed,  and  the 
council  assembled  first  at  Constantinople,  where  it  was 
violently  broken  up,  and  then  at  Nicsea,  in  the  year  787. 
This  was  the  so-called  "  seventh  general  council,"  and  the 
second  council  of  Nicsea,  Neither  Irene  nor  her  young  son 
were  present  in  person ;  but  they  were  represented  by  high 
officers  of  State.  Nicephorus,  the  historian,  who  after- 
wards became  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  was  the  secretary. 
There  were  two  delegates  from  Kome,  and  to  them  was 
assigned  the  first  place  of  honour  as  representing  the  pope. 
Next  came  Tarasius  as  the  bishop  of  "  New  Eome."  Two 
Oriental  monks  named  John  and  Thomas  were  supposed 
to  represent  the  absent  patriarchs  of  Alexandria,  Autioch, 
and  Jerusalem.  The  virtual  imprisonment  of  these  patriarchs 
within  the  dominions  of  the  Saracens  would  have  prevented 
their  coming  even  if  they  had  been  summoned ;  but  as 
things  turned  out  they  were  not  even  communicated  with, 
the  messengers  finding  that  they  could  not  get  safely 
through  to  them.2  All  the  other  members  of  the  council 
were  subjects  of  the  Byzantine  Empire.  Therefore,  with 
the  all-important  exception  of  the  presence  of  the  Roman 
delegates,  this  second  council  of  Nicsea  was  no  more 
oecumenical  than  the  iconoclastic  council  of  Constantinople 
in  the  reign  of  Constantino  Copronicus.  Nevertheless, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  registered  the  prevalent 
opinion  of  the  Church.  The  enlightened  iconoclastics  had 
proved  themselves  to  be  a  minority  with  no  popular  power ; 
they  had  only  succeeded  for  a  time  by  means  of  the  strong 
arm  of  the  State.  The  second  council  of  Nic;ea  carried  the 
people  with  it  when  deciding  positively  in  favour  of  the 

^  "  Adoravit  fastigium  virgee  ejus,"  Heb.  xi.  21  (Vulg.). 

*  Nevertheless  Hefele  ronsiders  that  the  two  monks  had  a  right  to 
represent  the  absent  patriarchs,  because  they  "represented  in  fact  the 
faith  of  the  three  patriarchs  in  regard  to  images  and  the  veneration  of 
them  "  {Hist.  Councils,  vol.  v.  p.  361). 


THE   RESTORATION   OP   IMAGE  WORSHIP  205 

pictures.  It  argued  that  "  the  oftener  one  gazed  on  these 
representations,  the  more  would  the  gazer  be  stirred  to  the 
resemblance  of  the  originals  and  the  imitation  of  them,  and 
to  offer  his  greeting  and  reverent  homage  to  them,^  not  the 
actual  worship,^  which  belonged  to  the  godhead  alone," 
...  for  "  whosoever  does  reverence  ^  to  an  image  does 
reverence  to  the  person  represented  by  it."  * 

The  pope  adopted  the  decrees  of  the  council,  and  thus 
Irene  had  her  ecclesiastical  policy  justified  by  the  Church 
voting  at  a  great  council  and  speaking  through  its  chief 
pontiff.  Her  personal  history  is  an  ugly  commentary  on 
these  transactions.  She  was  so  greedy  of  her  authority 
that  she  was  unwilling  for  her  son  Constantine  to  take  up 
the  government  when  he  came  of  age.  For  five  years  he 
succeeded  in  having  the  upper  hand.  Then  he  misused  his 
opportunity  by  putting  out  the  eyes  of  one  of  his  uncles, 
Nicephorus  the  Csesar,  and  cutting  out  the  tongues  of  four 
other  uncles.  These  crimes  might  have  been  condoned  by 
the  cruel  custom  of  the  times.  But  when  Constantine 
divorced  the  Empress  Maria,  whom  his  tyrannical  mother 
had  forced  upon  him,  and  married  Theodota,  one  of  his 
mother's  maids  of  honour,  that  ecclesiastical  offence  alienated 
the  Church  authorities  and  destroyed  his  popularity.  Irene 
came  back  into  power.  Thereupon  she  showed  her  vindic- 
tiveness,  or  at  least  her  unappeasable  ambition,  by  having 
Constantino's  eyes  put  out.  This  unnatural  mother  who 
blinded  her  own  son  has  been  canonised  by  the  Greek 
Church  for  her  restoration  of  image  worship.  She  was 
more  reasonably  appreciated  in  her  lifetime.  Dethroned 
by  a  court  conspiracy  (a.d.  802),  she  was  exiled  to  the 
island  of  Lesbos,  where  she  died  a  *few  months  later ;  and 
Nicephorus,  the  imperial  treasurer,  who  had  led  the  con- 
spiracy, succeeded  to  the  empire.  He  proved  to  be  a 
man  of  moderate  ideas,  who  wished  to  maintain  image 
worship  without  persecuting  its  opponents ;  but,  like  Zeno 
and  Justinian,  he  tried  to  bring  about  peace  by  forcibly 

1  aairaaixbv  Kal  Ti/j.7]TtKT)v  irpoaKvvqcTi.v.  ^  rrjv  a\7}6iv7]v  Xarpelav. 

3  TrpoffKuvel  *  Mansi,  374,  et  seq. 


206  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHDRCHES 

silencing  discussion.  Where  two  strong  men  had  failed  it 
is  not  surprising  that  this  weaker  ruler  did  not  succeed. 
In  pursuit  of  his  policy  of  encouraging  image  worship,  on 
the  death  of  Tarasius,  Nicephorus  appointed  his  namesake, 
known  to  us  as  Nicephorus  the  historian,  to  be  patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  a  man  of  principle  and  a  conscientious 
supporter  of  the  orthodox  position  at  the  return  of  Icono- 
clasm  (a.d.  806). 

A  disastrous  war  with  the  Bulgarians,  in  which  the 
Emperor  Nicepliorus  was  slain,  led  to  a  revolution,  in  con- 
sequence of  which  his  son  Staviacius,  after  having  been 
acknowledged  by  the  soldiers  for  two  months,  was  sent  to 
a  monastery,  there  to  die  of  his  wounds ;  and  the  previous 
emperor's  son-in-law  Michael  i.  was  set  on  the  throne. 
This  revolution  was  carried  out  by  the  bigoted  party  of  the 
image  worshippers  who  had  resented  the  comprehensive 
policy  of  the  late  emperor.  But  Michael  turned  out  to  be 
a  weak  ruler.  He  was  regarded  as  pious,  and  undoubtedly 
he  pleased  the  Church  by  granting  out  of  the  State  funds 
lavish  doles  to  her  charities  and  to  leading  clergy ;  but 
since  he  made  similar  grants  to  high-placed  court  function- 
aries and  chief  officers  of  the  army,  such  action  was 
remarkably  like  bribery.  Another  of  his  pious  deeds  was 
to  cover  the  tomb  of  Tarasius  with  silver,  in  grateful 
acknowledgment  of  the  kindness  of  the  dead  patriarch — 
now  prayed  to  as  a  saint — for  causing  a  severe  epidemic  to 
spread  among  the  invading  Bulgarians.  But  best  of  all,  he 
won  the  admiration  of  the  orthodox  by  yielding  to  their 
persuasion  in  abandoning  his  liberal  policy  and  persecuting 
the  supporters  of  Iconoclasm.  This  fact  shows  that  the 
movement  which  Leo  the  Isaurian  had  commenced  as  a 
piece  of  high-handed  imperial  policy,  despotically  forced  on 
the  Church,  was  not  so  entirely  without  popular  support 
as  its  opponents  contended ;  or,  at  all  events,  that  it  had 
gained  some  friends  in  the  course  of  the  eighty  years  that 
had  intervened.  A  number  of  Iconoclasts  together  with 
Paulicians  and  other  heretics  were  persecuted,  some  even 
being  put  to  death. 


THE    RESTORATION    OF    IMAGE    WORSHIP  207 

Then  came  the  reaction,  originated  on  other  grounds. 
Michael  was  quite  incompetent  to  sustain  the  war  with  the 
Bulgarians,  and  in  order  to  save  the  empire  the  soldiers 
elected  one  of  their  generals,  Leo  the  Armenian,  as  its  head 
(a.d.  813),  sending  Micliael  like  his  predecessor  into  a 
monastery.  The  new  emperor  proved  his  strength  at  once 
by  refusing  the  patriarch's  demand  that  he  should  follow 
his  predecessor's  example  and  sign  a  declaration  of  ortho- 
doxy— which,  under  the  circumstances,  meant  image  wor- 
ship. In  course  of  time  he  brought  about  an  effective 
reorganisation  of  civil  government,  and  throughout  his 
reign  he  maintained  good  order  and  the  regular  adminis- 
tration of  justice  LQ  the  law  courts.  Thus  in  the  second 
iconoclastic  period,  as  in  the  first,  we  see  under  the  reform- 
ing emperors  both  good  government  and  respectable  morals. 
Leo  appears  to  have  been  in  sympathy  with  Iconoclasm 
from  the  first,  although  as  a  calm,  statesman-Uke  ruler, 
he  desired  to  act  with  moderation  and  to  maintain  the 
peace  of  the  Church.  But  he  was  urged  to  take  stronger 
measures  against  the  image  worshippers  by  a  remarkable 
man  known  as  John  the  Grammarian. 

We  have  now  reached  the  period  of  Alfred  and  Alcuin 
in  the  West,  when  a  temporary  revival  of  letters  seemed  to 
promise  an  end  to  the  intellectual  slumber  that  was  settling 
down  over  Europe — a  promise  doomed  to  miserable  dis- 
appointment. At  this  very  time  in  the  Eastern  Church 
we  have  John  the  Grammarian,  a  scholar,  versed  in  the 
science  of  his  day,  which  he  appears  to  have  acquired  from 
the  Arabians.  Of  course  he  was  accused  of  magic  by  the 
orthodox.  But  John  was  an  abbot  and  of  an  illustrious 
family.  With  him  were  associated  other  learned  men  who 
also  repudiated  the  superstition  of  image  worship.  The  re- 
formers were  numerically  weak ;  but  morally  and  intellectually 
they  were  worthy  of  respect — a  small  body  of  clear-sighted, 
cultivated  men,  who  strove  in  vain  to  stem  the  tide  of  the 
popular  religion,  which  consisted  of  materialistic  ideas  and 
sensuous  ceremonies.  These  scholars  persuaded  Leo  to  have 
the  pictures   removed   from  the  churches  which  were   in 


208  THE   GREEK   AND   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

possession  of  the  clergy  of  their  own  party.     Even    that 
mild  action — a   trifle   in   comparison  with   the    tyrannical 
persecution  by  Constantine  Copronymus— provoked  violent 
opposition   on    the  part  of   the  monks.      The   soldiers   re- 
taliated.    A  riotous  body  of  men  from  the  army  broke  into 
the  patriarchal  palace  at  Constantinople  and  destroyed  the 
sacred  pictures  that  adorned  its  walls.     Passion  was  rising 
to  fever-heat  on  both  sides.      Then,  much  against  his  in- 
clination, Leo  found  it  necessary  to  take  action.     He  deposed 
the  patriarch  Nicephorus — a  deed  for  which  we  may  be 
selfishly  grateful,  since  it  gave  this  leading  actor  in  the  events 
of  his  times   leisure  to  write   his  history.      The    emperor 
appointed  a  layman  Theodotus  Mellissenus  to  the  vacant 
post ;  and  he  summoned  what  he  wished  to  be  regarded  as 
a  general  council  at  Constantinople  (a.d.  816),  which  con- 
firmed the  decision  of  the  earlier  iconoclastic  council  in  the 
same  city  (that  held  A.D.  754),  condemned  image  worship, 
and  anathematised  the  patriarchs  Tarasius  and  Nicephorus 
and  all  image  worshippers.      Eecalcitrant  clergy  were  to  be 
deposed;   but   there   were   few   such,  for   most   submitted. 
We  have   seen   that  this  was  the  normal  practice  in  the 
Byzantine  Empire.     Now  again,  as  on  previous  occasions,  the 
stubborn  opposition  came  from  the  independent  monks,  not 
from  the  demure  State-endowed  and  State-regulated  clergy. 
Leo  was  rewarded  for  his  vigorous  reforms  in  the  civil 
service  by  assassination,  and  was  succeeded  by  one  of  the 
conspirators,    a    trusted    friend  —  Michael    II.,    nicknamed 
"the  Stammerer"  (a.d.  820).     This  emperor  was  tolerant 
towards  both  parties,  since  he  wished  to  be  conciliatory, 
although  he  leaned  towards  the   iconoclastic   policy.     He 
died  in  the  year   829,  and  was  succeeded  by  Theophilus, 
who  at  first  followed   the  same  line  of  policy,  but  tliree 
years  after  his  accession  issued  a  decree  proliibiting  image 
worship,  which  was  executed  in  some  instances  with  much 
harshness.^     Lazarus,   a    famous    painter,   was    imprisoned 

^  Continuator,  62  ;  Cedreiius,  .^)14.  We  now  have  to  part  company  with 
our  two  chief  authorities  for  the  iconoclastic  period — Theophanes  and 
Nicephorus. 


THE    RESTORATION    OF    IMAGE    WORSHIP  209 

and  scourged,  and  two  monks,  Theophanes  the  Singer  and 
Theodore  Graptus,  were  tortured — the  latter  receiving  his 
surname  from  the  fact  tliat  some  verses  were  branded  on 
his  forehead.  A  Httle  later  John  the  Grammarian  was 
elected  patriarch  and  was  induced  to  summon  a  synod 
which  condemned  image  worship. 

On  the  death  of  Theophilus  (a.d.  842),  his  widow 
Theodora,  as  regent  to  her  son  Michael  iii.,  surnamed  "  The 
Drunkard,"  restored  the  image  worship  and  so  put  an  end 
to  the  second  iconoclastic  campaign.  Within  a  few  months 
of  her  accession  to  power  she  summoned  a  council,  which 
confirmed  the  decision  of  the  second  council  of  Nicsea. 
Still,  the  fires  of  the  controversy  were  only  smouldering ; 
for  in  the  year  860  the  patriarch  Photius  proposed  to  Pope 
Nicholas  another  council  against  the  Iconoclasts,  which  met 
in  the  following  year.  But,  though  this  council  deposed 
Ignatius,  who  had  supplanted  Photius,  we  have  no  record 
of  any  reference  to  images  during  the  course  of  its  pro- 
ceedings. Eight  years  later  (a.d.  869)  yet  another  synod 
denounced  the  Iconoclasts  and  upheld  the  pictures  as  useful 
for  the  "  instruction  "  of  the  people.  Henceforth  they  have 
hung  on  the  walls  of  Greek  churches,  undisturbed  except 
by  the  ravages  of  war  and  time,  and  adored  by  successive 
generations  of  the  devout. 

Although  the  iconoclastic  movement  sprang  from  the 
enlightened  policy  of  two  dynasties  of  strong  emperors, 
while  the  practice  of  image  worship  was  maintained  by  the 
ignorant  populace  and  the  fanatical  monks,  it  must  not  be 
supposed  that  the  latter  lacked  oapable  and  high-minded 
defenders.  On  the  contrary,  the  ablest  theologian  in  each 
of  the  two  periods  of  Iconoclasm  was  a  champion  of  image 
worship.  To  the  first  period  belongs  John  of  Damascus, 
and  to  the  second  Theodore  of  Studium,  the  only  church- 
men of  permanent  fame  who  appeared  in  the  Eastern  Church 
during  tlie  eighth  and  ninth  centuries. 

John  of  Damascus  is  known  as  the  last  of  the  Fathers. 
He  it  was  who  summed  up  the  results  of  the  previous 
centuries  of  controversy  and  gave  to  his  Church  the  dogmas 
14 


210  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

of  orthodoxy  in  the  stereotyped  form  which  has  character- 
ised tliem  during  all  subsequent  ages.     There  is  much  that 
is  mythical  in  tlie  story  of  his  life.     We  cannot  fix  the  date 
of  his  birth  ;  but  it  is  clear  that  he  was  ordained  before 
the  year  735.     His  death  occurred  sometime  between  the 
years  759  and   767.     Thus  liis  active  life  coincides  with 
the  period  of  the  great  iconoclastic  persecution  beginning 
in  the  reign  of  Leo  the  Isaurian  and  extending  through  the 
greater  part  of   that   of   Constantine   Copronymus.     John 
came   from   a  Christian  family   in   the  city  of   Damascus 
bearing  the  Arabic  name  of  Mansour,  and  he  held  for  a 
time  an  honourable  post  in  the  court  of  the  caliph.      From 
this  place  of  shelter  he  launched  his  attacks  on  Leo  the 
Isaurian  with  impunity,  when  that  emperor  was  engaged 
in  putting  down  picture  worship.      Unable  to  get  at  him 
directly,  Leo  is  said  to  have  sent  the  caliph  a  forged  letter 
in  the  handwriting  of  John  offering  to  let  the  emperor  into 
Damascus.     Thereupon,  we  are  told,  the  caliph  had  John's 
right  hand  cut  off.       It  was  restored  to  him  in  response  to 
his  prayer  to  the  Virgin,      Subsequently  John  retired  to  the 
famous  monastery  of  Mar  Saba,  still  overhanging  the  gorge 
of  the   Kidron  in  the  wilderness  of  Judsea.      The  monks 
were  afraid  to  receive  so  important  a  personage  from  the 
court  till  they  had  tested  his  humility.     This  they  did  by 
sending  him  back  to  Damascus  with  a  load  of  baskets  manu- 
factured at  the  monastery.      There  is  no  reason  to  question 
the  second  story  simply  because  we  must  regard  the  earlier 
narrative   as   legendary,  for  truth  and  fiction  are    always 
mixed   up   in  these  lives   of  saints,  and    the   ordeal  'was 
quite    characteristic.       John    stood    this  and   every  other 
test  that  was  devised    to    try  him,   after   which   he   was 
duly   accepted.       He   lived   the  rest  of    his  days    in    his 
out  of  the  world  retreat,  composing  hymns  and  theological 
works. 

The  most  important  of  the  works  of  John  of  Damascus 
is  the  De  Fide  Ortlwdoxa}  What  the  Summa  of  Thomas 
Aquinas    is    for  the  Roman  Church    and    what    Calvin's 


THE   RESTORATION   OF   IMAGE   WORSHIP  211 

Institutes  is  for  the  Eeformed  Church,  that  is  this  work 
for  the  Greek  Church — the  most  orderly  and  systematic 
exposition  of  the  accepted  theology.  It  is  divided  into 
four  books :  Book  I.  discusses  the  doctrine  of  God  and  the 
Trinity;  Book  II.  is  concerned  with  Creation  and  the 
Nature  of  Man  ;  Book  III.  states  the  doctrine  of  Christ 
and  the  Incarnation,  including  the  relation  of  the  two 
natures  and  the  two  wills,  Mary  as  the  mother  of  God,  the 
death  of  our  Lord  and  His  descent  into  Hades ;  Book  IV. 
carries  on  the  doctrine  of  Christ  to  His  resurrection  and 
reign;  but  it  is  chiefly  occupied  with  a  number  of 
miscellaneous  subjects — such  as  faith,  worship,  images, 
Scripture,  sin,  virginity,  resurrection,  etc.  Like  Augustine, 
who  gave  its  character  to  Latin  theology,  especially 
in  so  far  as  he  was  followed  by  Gregory  the  Great — 
the  last  of  the  Western  Fathers  and  the  first  medite/al 
theologian — John  of  Damascus,  the  last  of  the  Eastern 
Fathers,  sets  before  us  the  essence  of  Greek  theology.  It 
is  interesting  to  see  where  these  Fathers  differ.  The 
mysterious  subject  of  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
on  which  the  two  churches  divided,  really  belongs  to  a 
later  period,  although  John  anticipates  the  Greek  position. 
The  following  are  his  chief  points  of  distinction  from 
Augustine  and  Gregory  : — His  assertion  of  free  will — a 
marked  feature  of  Greek  theology  throughout  in  contra- 
distinction from  Latin ;  his  silence  as  to  original  sin  ;  his 
distinction  between  foreknowledge  and  predestination ;  his 
denial  of  the  physical  fire  of  hell — so  prominent  in  the 
lurid  horrors  of  the  mediaeval  inferno  from  Gregory  to 
Dante ;  and  his  moderate  views  of  the  sacraments, 
which  he  holds  to  be  only  two — Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper. 

The  other  important  theologian  of  the  iconoclastic 
period  is  Theodore  of  Studium,  who  comes  in  the  second 
and  milder  time  of  imperial  attacks  on  image  worship  as 
the  champion  of  the  pictures.  He  may  be  said  to  have 
pronoimced  the  final  word  of  orthodoxy  on  the  subject. 
Theodore  was  born  in  the  year  759  in  a  family  of  high 


212  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

social  position  at  Constantinople.  Thus  he  was  a  youth 
sixteen  years  old  when  Irene  restored  the  worship  of  pic- 
tures, and  the  greater  part  of  his  life  was  spent  in  the 
subsequent  period  of  image  worship.  Under  the  influence 
of  his  uncle  Paul,  who  renounced  the  gay  society  of  Con- 
Btantinople  and  retired  to  a  cave,  a  wave  of  enthusiasm 
for  monasticisni  swci)t  over  the  whole  family.  "  Theodore, 
with  his  father,  his  remaining  uncles  and  his  brothers,  went 
into  a  monastic  retreat  under  the  direction  of  Paul,  while 
his  mother  took  her  one  little  daughter  to  live  with  her 
"  in  cellular  fashion."  It  would  seem  that  the  mother  was 
the  dominant  influence  in  this  scattering  of  her  family,  for 
when  her  youngest  son,  breaking  down  at  the  piteous 
moment  of  parting,  clung  to  her  neck  begging  her  to  let 
him  stay  with  lier,  the  determined  woman  answered,  "  Tf 
you  do  not  go  willingly,  my  child,  I  will  drag  you  with 
my  own  hand  on  board  ship." 

For  thirteen  years  Theodore  lived  in  the  monastery  of 
Saccudio  under  his  uncle  Paul,  who  ordained  him  to  the 
priesthood  and  then  insisted  on  consecrating  him  abbot  in 
place  of  himself — a  singular  act  of  self-abnegation,  which, 
while  it  does  honour  to  the  devotion  and  humility  of  the 
senior,  and  helps  us  to  understand  the  spell  he  had  cast  on 
his  family,  also  testifies  to  the  high  qualities  that  had  been 
revealed  in  the  junior.  Practically  they  lived  as  joint 
abbots — for  Theodore  would  not  let  his  uncle  retire — first 
at  Saccudio  and  then  at  Studium,  a  monastery  situated 
within  the  walls  of  Const-antinople.  Constantine  Por- 
phyrogenitus  had  broken  up  the  establishment  at  Saccudio 
in  a  rage  because  the  monks  would  not  give  their  consent 
to  his  second  marriage.  This  incident,  revealing  the 
emperor's  desire  to  have  an  endorsement  of  his  conduct 
from  the  monks,  followed  by  the  refusal  of  the  monks 
to  grant  it,  shows  how  powerful  the  monastery  was  as  an 
independent  body.  On  her  return  to  power  Irene  had  rein- 
stated the  scattered  monks.  But  a  raid  of  the  Saracens 
afterwards  made  it  necessary  for  them  to  retreat  across 
the    Bosphorus;    and    then    it    was    that    Theodore    was 


THE    RESTORATION    OF    IMAGE    WORSHIP  213 

appointed  abbot  of  tbe  great  monastery  of  Studium. 
The  monks  in  this  monastery  were  of  the  order  of 
Accemcti  (the  Sleepless),  so  named  because  they  took 
turns  in  a  continuous  chanting  of  the  praise  of  God  in 
their  chapel  that  never  ceased  day  or  night  all  through 
the  twenty  -  four  hours  the  whole  year  round.  This 
monastery  was  also  a  famous  centre  for  the  copying  of 
manuscripts,  and  the  beautiful  handwriting  here  developed 
became  famous. 

When  Leo  the  Armenian  revived  the  iconoclastic 
movement,  Theodore  appeared  as  the  champion  of  the 
pictures.  In  defiance  of  the  imperial  commands,  he 
arranged  a  procession  of  sacred  icons  borne  aloft  through  the 
streets  of  Constantinople  on  Palm  Sunday  in  the  year  815. 
It  is  in  Theodore's  writings  that  we  get  the  clearest  under- 
standing of  the  case  for  image  worship.  We  can  understand 
the  popular  idolatry.  But  what  we  want  to  see  is  how 
men  of  intelligence,  culture,  and  genuine  rehgious  earnest- 
ness, like  John  of  Damascus  and  Theodore  of  Studium, 
could  support  what  the  reforming  emperors  were  endeavour- 
ing to  suppress  as  childish  superstition  and  rank  idolatry. 
There  must  have  been  some  intellectual  reason  and  some 
high  religious  motive  in  the  strenuous  opposition  of  these 
men  to  what  strikes  us  as  an  enlightened  and  elevated 
policy.  Our  best  answer  to  this  question  is  to  be  found 
in  the  writings  of  Theodore — his  Antirrhetica  Adversus 
Iconomachos  and  his  letters.  His  arguments  amount  in 
the  main  to  three:  (1)  Theodore  insists  on  the  impiety  of 
the  secular  government  in  interfering  with  the  affairs  of 
the  Church.  It  was  late  in  the  day  to  raise  such  a  p(jiut, 
at  Constantinople  of  all  places.  But  although  people 
had  tamely  submitted  to  interference  which  only  affected 
bishops  and  theologians,  in  appointing  and  deposing 
ecclesiastics,  and  in  dictating  doctrinal  statements,  it  was 
another  matter  when  emperors  ventured  to  lay  their  finger 
on  the  popular  worship  in  the  churches.  Besides,  the 
monks  had  always  stood  for  the  independence  of  the 
Church,  even  when  the  bishops  had  meekly  bowed  to  the 


214  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

yoke  of  the  State.  (2)  Theodore  thought  he  detected  an 
attack  on  the  doctrine  of  the  incarnation.  Here  the  dis- 
cussion enters  the  region  of  theological  controversy.  The 
Iconoclasts  were  suspected  of  monophysitism.  They  had 
come  from  the  home  of  the  Monophysites  in  Asia  Minor — 
the  instigator  of  the  first  attack  from  Isauria,  the  leader 
of  the  second  from  Armenia.  Then  the  controversy  was 
diverted  from  its  original  question.  It  was  no  longer 
merely  supposed  to  be  the  contention  of  the  Iconoclasts 
that  the  worship  of  images  was  idolatry;  they  were 
charged  with  denying  that  any  true  picture  of  Christ  could 
be  made,  because  as  God  He  had  no  longer  a  circumscribed 
bodily  form.  The  contention  of  the  image  worshippers, 
on  the  other  hand,  was  that  this  line  of  argument  destroyed 
the  permanence  of  the  incarnation.  The  humanity  of 
Christ  is  lost  if  He  is  not  such  that  He  can  be  represented 
in  a  picture.  (3)  The  dreadful  charge  of  Manichaeism 
— so  often  revived  in  heresy  controversies — was  raised 
against  the  Iconoclasts.  Their  aversion  to  a  representa- 
tion of  the  bodily  appearence  of  Christ  was  taken  by 
the  image  worshippers  as  a  sign  of  their  reprobation  of 
matter  as  evil  in  itself.  So  was  their  objection  to  kissing 
the  pictures. 

We  must  admit  that  there  was  some  ground  for 
Theodore's  contentions.  The  iconoclastic  emperors  may 
have  had  a  good  cause  ;  but  they  spoilt  it  by  their  tyranny. 
They  did  not  go  the  way  to  effect  a  genuine  reformation  of 
religion.  Then  there  was  a  real  danger  lest  the  incarna- 
tion itself  should  be  lost  in  theories  about  it.  A  picture 
of  Christ  was  a  wholesome  antidote  to  the  abstractions  of 
metaphysical  theology  in  relation  to  the  Second  Person  of 
the  Trinity.  Possibly,  too,  some  truly  religious  influence 
was  exercised  by  the  contemplation  of  the  pictures.  They 
were  thought  to  have  a  sacramental  efficacy.  Whatever 
may  be  said  of  the  mysticism  or  materialism  of  this  view, 
we  must  acknowledge  that  the  aim  of  devout  defenders  of 
the  popular  worship  was  high  and  pure.  They  maintained 
that  the  picture  of  Christ  brought  Him  near  to  those  who 


THE    RESTORATION    OF    IMAGE    WORSHIP  215 

gazed  on  it  reverently.  Theodore  writes  in  the  spirit  of 
St.  Francis  and  Thomas  h,  Kempis :  "  The  true  Christian  is 
nothing  but  a  copy  or  impression  of  Christ,"  ^  and  he  quotes 
Dionysius  the  Areopagite  when  he  says,  "  The  archetype 
appears  in  the  image."  -  Unfortunately  this  line  of  argu- 
ment would  almost  justify  idolatry  per  se,  when  distinguished 
from  fetishism. 

^  Lib.  ii.  Ep.  22.  *  Lib.  ii.  Ep.  38. 


CHAPTER  V 
THE  PAULICIANS 

(a)  George  Monachias  ;  Photins  ;  "  Continuator  "  ;  Nicetas  ;  Anna 

Comnena  ;  Michael  Psellus  ;  Euthymius,  The  Key  of  Truth  ; 
Petrus  Siculus  ;  Zonaras. 

(b)  Gibbon,  chap,  liv.,  and  Bury,  Appendix  6  ;  Finlay,  Byzantine 

Empire,  Book  I.  chap.  iii.  ;  Smith's  Dictionary  of  Chr.  Biog., 
article  "  Pauliciani " ;  F.  C.  Conybeare,  The  Key  of  Truth, 
1898  ;  Karapet  Ter-Urkrttschian,  Lie  Paulikiamr  in  byzan- 
tinischen  kaiserreidte,  1893. 

The  Pnulicians,  to  whom  Gibbon  devotes  a  whole  chapter 
of  his  history,  have  been  the  most  egregiously  libelled  of 
all  the  Christian  sects.  The  orthodox  Church  accused 
tliem.  of  the  very  scandals  that  the  pagans  had  imagined 
with  regard  to  the  early  Christians,  and  with  no  more  basis 
of  fact  to  rest  their  charges  upon.  Even  ecclesiastics  who 
beliaved  more  reasonably  confounded  them  with  the  hated 
Manichseans,  or  at  best  with  the  heretical  Marcionites.  The 
simplicity  of  their  religious  faith  and  life,  and  their  rejection 
of  the  extravagances  and  superstitions  of  the  later  Church, 
led  to  their  history  and  tenets  being  dragged  into  theological 
controversies  with  which  they  had  no  immediate  concern, 
and  therefore,  of  course,  to  monstrous  perversions  of  them. 
But  quite  recently,  following  minor  results  of  research,  Mr. 
Conybeare  has  rendered  a  great  service  to  their  memory  by 
his  publication  and  translation  of  the  ancient  Paulician  work. 
The  K»y  of  Truth}  together  with  a  valuable  historical  and 
critical  study  of  it.  We  are  now  able  to  brush  away  the  libels 
of  centuries  and  go  to  an  original  source  for  our  knowledge 

^  From  a  MS.  written  a.d.  1782  and  found  by  Mr.  Conybeare  in  the 
archives  of  the  Holy  Synod  of  Ediniatzin. 

216 


THE   PAULICIANS  217 

of   the  teachings  and  practices  of    these  much   maligned 
people.^ 

Beyond  the  Taurus  mountains  in  the  south-east  of 
Armenia  there  lived  during  the  eighth  and  ninth  centuries  a 
community  of  Christians  cherishing  their  own  discipline, 
rites,  and  doctrines  apart  from  the  main  body  of  the  Eastern 
Church  and  all  its  later  developments.  These  people,  who 
came  to  be  known  in  the  outside  world  as  Paulicians,  and 
who  afterwards  accepted  the  title  for  themselves,  owe  their 
original  separateness  to  their  geographical  seclusion.  There- 
fore it  is  quite  arguable  tliat  they  should  be  regarded  as 
representing  the  survival  of  a  more  primitive  type  of 
Christianity  rather  than  as  the  followers  of  a  heresy  which 
sprang  up  nearer  the  time  when  they  emerged  into  the 
daylight  of  history,  and  Mr.  Conybeare  connects  them  with 
the  primitive  Adoptionists,  whose  views  can  be  traced  back 
to  very  early  times. ^  The  ideas  of  these  people  are  now  to 
be  seen  in  The  Key  of  Truth,  which  is  a  book  of  the 
Throuraketyi,  or  Paulicians  of   Thouraki,  composed  about 

^  The  origin  of  the  name  "  Paulician  "  is  somewhat  obscure.  There  is  no 
foimdation  for  the  notion  of  ninth  century  polemical  writers,  that  it  is  to  be 
traced  to  a  Manichsean  of  the  fourth  century  named  Paul,  since  the  Paulicians 
were  certainly  not  of  Manichaean  origin.  The  writer  in  Smith's  Dictionary  of 
Christian  Biography  regards  it  as  a  reference  to  the  Apostle  Paul.  Like 
the  Marcionites,  the  Paulicians  made  much  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  and 
Photius  says  that  they  themselves  derived  their  name  from  the  apostle 
(Photius,  ii.  11  ;  iii.  10  ;  vi.  4).  Mr.  Conybeare  derives  it  from  Paul  of 
Saniosata,  quoting  the  Armenian  writer  Gregory  Magistros,  who  says,  "  Here 
then  you  see  the  Paulicians  who  got  their  poison  from  Paul  of  Samosata  " 
{Key  of  Truth,  p.  cv.).  In  the  19th  Canon  of  Nicnea  the  followers  of  Paul  of 
Samosata  are  called  PauHani ;  PavMciani  is  the  Armenian  form  of  this 
name,  the  "  ic  "  or  "  ik  "  being  a  diminutive  introduced  in  contempt.  They 
did  not  at  first  call  themselves  by  the  title,  but  simply  designated  themselves 
"Christians."  It  may  have  been  flung  at  them  by  opponents  to  connect 
them  with  the  heretic  Paul,  and  subsequently  interpreted  by  them  in  a  new 
meaning  to  refer  to  the  apostle  and  so  throw  off  the  libel. 

^  Adoptionism  is  foimd  in  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas  and  other  early  Church 
writings,  perhaps  also  in  the  New  Testament,  in  the  discourses  of  St.  Peter 
{e.g.  Acts  v.  31),  which  representtbe  primitive  Christology,  preceding  (1)  the 
miraculous  birth  idea  expressed  in  the  infancy  narratives  of  the  first  and 
third  Gospels,  especially  in  Luke  i.  35,  and  (2)  the  still  more  developed  con- 
ception of  the  pre-existent  Son  of  God  becoming  incarnate,  in  St.  Paul  and 
St.  John  {e.g.  Gal.  iv.  4  ;  John  i.  14). 


218  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

the  year  800.  This  book  reveals  a  simple  Church  order 
with  no  hierarchy.  There  is  only  one  grade  of  the  ministry 
consisting  of  the  "  elect,"  and  the  ministers  are  called 
indifferently  by  the  various  titles  of  apostle,  priest,  bishop, 
elder.  Admission  to  the  Church  is  by  baptism,  which 
must  be  sought  voluntarily.  Infant  baptism  is  repudiated. 
There  is  no  idea  of  original  sin  ;  therefore  infants  do  not 
need  baptism.  The  proper  time  for  baptism  is  the  age  of 
thirty.  After  his  baptism,  which  should  be  in  a  river,  the 
Holy  Spirit  enters  the  immersed  person.  There  are  three 
sacraments — repentance,  baptism,  the  body  and  the  blood. 
Tlie  latter,  the  Eucharist,  is  taken  at  night,  and  not  separated 
from  the  Agape,  which  is  still  preserved.  Mariolatry  and 
the  intercession  of  saints  are  rejected ;  image  worship,  the 
use  of  crosses,  relics,  incense,  candles,  and  resorting  to  sacred 
springs  are  all  repudiated  as  idolatrous  practices.  The  idea 
of  purgatory  is  rejected.  The  holy  year  begins  with  the 
feast  of  John  the  Baptist.  January  6th  is  observed  as  the 
festival  of  the  baptism  and  spiritual  rebirth  of  Jesus. 
Zatik,  or  Easter,  is  kept  on  the  14th  Nisan.  We  meet 
with  no  special  Sunday  observances,  and  possibly  the 
Saturday  Sabbath  was  maintained.  There  is  no  feast  of 
Christmas  or  of  the  Annunciation. 

When  we  come  to  consider  the  question  of  doctrine,  we 
note  that  the  word  "  Trinity  "  never  appears  in  the  book. 
Yet  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  rite  of  baptism  consists  of 
one  immersion  followed  by  the  throwing  of  three  handfuls 
of  water  over  the  candidate.  The  system  is  not  IMarcionite, 
for  it  has  no  traces  of  Docetism.  On  the  contrary,  it  is 
Ado]-)tionist.  The  Paulicians  have  been  accused  of  rejecting 
the  Old  Testament.  But  The  Key  of  Truth  shows  that  this 
was  not  actually  the  case.  It  contains  quotations  from  the 
Old  Testament,  thonu:h  these  are  but  few,  and  its  chief 
authority  is  the  New  Testament,  the  whole  of  which  it  accepta 
The  Paulicians  have  also  been  accused  of  the  Manichseism  of 
holding  that  the  world  was  created  by  Satan.  This  is  a  libel, 
perhaps  to  be  attributed  to  their  denial  that  Christ  created  it. 

We    can  well    understand    why  people    holding  such 


THE    PAULICIANS  219 

views  and  carrying  on  such  practices  as  are  here  described 
were  persecuted  by  the  Greek  Church.  In  many  respects 
their  position  resembles  that  of  the  iconoclastic  emperors, 
some  of  whom  came  from  the  neighbourhood  of  the 
PauHcians  and  may  have  been  influenced  by  them.  Ancient 
Oriental  Baptists,  these  people  were  in  many  respects 
Protestants  before  Protestantism.  They  held  to  a  simple 
spiritual  conception  of  Christianity,  to  a  democratic  Church 
order,  and  to  an  unorthodox  view  of  the  nature  of  Christ. 
A  dogmatic,  hierarchical,  ritualistic,  superstitious  Church 
could  not  possibly  tolerate  them.  Their  fiercest  enemies  were 
the  monks,  of  whom  they  had  no  good  opinion.  They  said  that 
the  devil's  favourite  disguise  was  the  appearance  of  a  monk. 
The  first  leader  of  the  Paulicians  known  to  us, 
commonly  regarded  as  their  founder,  was  Constautine,  who 
came  from  the  village  of  Mananalis,  not  far  from  the 
cataract  of  the  Euphrates  mentioned  by  Pliny.  Like  so 
many  other  great  leaders  of  religion  he  received  his  first 
impulse  from  Scripture.  A  deacon  coming  home  from  Syria, 
where  he  had  been  held  captive  by  the  Saracens,  was 
hospitably  entertained  by  Constantine,  in  return  for  which 
kindness  he  gave  his  host  two  volumes,  one  containing  the 
Gospels  and  the  other  St.  Paul's  Epistles.  Constantine 
eagerly  devoured  them,  and  they  lit  in  him  the  fire  of 
missionary  enthusiasm.  Especially  interested  in  St.  Paul, 
he  adopted  the  name  of  the  apostle's  companion  Silvanus, 
started  on  a  tour  of  preaching  about  the  year  657,  and 
continued  his  work  for  some  twenty-seven  years.  Going 
up  the  course  of  the  Euphrates,  he  crossed  the  great  barrier 
of  the  Taurus  and  carried  his  gospel  into  more  western 
regions  of  ^ Asia  Minor.  He  had  now  left  the  tolerant  rule 
of  the  caliphate,  which  in  so  far  as  it  gave  liberty  to  the 
Christians  did  not  trouble  itself  to  distinguish  between  the 
sects,  regarding  orthodoxy  and  heresy  with  equal  contempt, 
and  he  had  come  within  the  bounds  both  of  the  empire  and 
of  the  Church.  There  his  success  in  founding  churches  of 
his  own  persuasion,  which  he  named  after  St.  Paul's 
churches,  was    so  great    that    the    Emperor    Constantine 


'220  TIIK    flllKKK    AND    KASTRRN    CHURCHES 

Pogotmtus  hiul  liis  attention  directed  to  it,  with  the  result 
that  lie  sent  an  imperial  officer  named  Simeon  to  the  spot 
to  suppress  the  movement.  Constantine  Silvanus  and 
many  of  his  followers  were  arrested.  They  refused  to 
lecant,  and  their  faitliful  testimony  was  so  striking  that  it 
won  over  Simeon  to  their  side,  and  he  was  to  be  seen  later 
troinj;  al)out  as  a  teacher  in  the  mission  under  the  Pauline 
name  of  Silas.  Meanwhile  Silvanus  had  been  stoned  to 
death,  and  in  the  year  690  Simeon  and  several  others 
among  the  Paulicians  were  killed  by  order  of  the  cruel 
Emperor  Justinian  ii. 

During  the  next  century  divisions  broke  out  among 
the  Paulicians.  For  a  time  Paul  the  Armenian — to  whose 
name  some  trace  the  title  of  the  sect — was  its  leader,  and 
on  his  death  each  of  his  sons,  Gegncesius  and  Theodore, 
claimed  the  succession.  Gegnoesius,  who  was  the  elder, 
based  his  claim  on  appointment  by  his  father.  The  doctiine 
of  apostolical  succession  was  now  creeping  into  this  chureli, 
which  had  stood  at  first  for  spirituality  and  democratic 
simplicity.  But  Theodore  claimed  to  receive  his  grace,  as 
his  father  had  received  grace,  direct  from  God.  The 
unseemly  disputes  that  now  arose  again  called  the  govern- 
ment's attention  to  the  Paulicians,  and  in  the  year  722 
Gegnoesius  was  summoned  to  Constantinople  and  brought 
before  Leo  the  Isaurian.  It  was  well  for  him  and  his 
followers  that  the  emperor  was  the  great  protestant 
Iconoclast.  Had  he  been  a  bigoted  champion  of  orthodoxy 
it  would  have  gone  ill  with  the  Paulicians ;  but  there  was 
much  in  connnon  between  these  people  and  the  iconoclastic 
emperors,^  and  Leo  listened  to  Gegnoesius  very  tolerantly 
and  could  see  no  harm  in  his  doctrines,  nor  could  the  awed 
patriarch  Germauus  detect  any  lurking  error  in  them. 
The  result  was  that  the  accused  teacher  was  sent  back  home 
with  imperial  letters  for  the  protection  of  the  Paulicians. 
Throughout  the  reigns  of  the  iconoclastic  emperors  they 
generally  enjoyed  imperial  favour  and  were  seldom  molested. 
After  a  period  of  depression  owing  to  divisions  and 
'  Mr.  Conybeare  regards  the  iconoclastic  emperors  as  virtually  Paulicians. 


THE   PAULICIANS  221 

unworthy  leadei-ship  during  the  latter  part  of  the  eighth 
century,  the  Pauhcians  revived  at  the  beginning  of  the 
ninth  century  under  the  leadership  of  the  good  and  gifted 
Sergius.  Like  Silvanus,  this  man  was  led  to  a  new  way 
of  life  under  the  influence  of  the  Gospels  and  the  Epistles 
of  Paul,  to  which  he  had  been  referred  by  a  woman  member 
of  the  sect.  He  now  objected  to  the  orthodox  Church  on 
account  of  its  withdrawal  of  the  Scriptures  from  the 
attention  of  the  people.  As  we  read  this  story  of  Sergius 
we  seem  to  be  anticipating  the  history  of  the  Eeformation, 
which  took  the  same  lines  in  regard  to  the  Bible. 

Sergius  followed  the  curious  example  of  earlier  leaders 
of  the  sect  and  took  a  Pauline  name,  Tychicus,  when  he 
entered  on  a  similar  missionary  career.  He  carried  on  his 
labours  for  thirty-four  years,  visiting  almost  every  part  of 
the  central  plateaus  of  Asia  Minor.  In  one  of  his  letters 
he  wrote,  "  I  have  run  from  east  to  west,  and  from  north 
to  south,  till  my  knees  were  weary,  preaching  the  gospel 
of  Christ."  ^  Meanwhile,  like  his  great  predecessor 
St.  Paul,  he  maintained  himself  by  working  with  his  own 
hands,  his  trade  being  that  of  a  carpenter.  This  really 
promised  to  be  a  great  religious  revival.  If  the  iconoclastic 
party  of  the  government  had  joined  heartily  with  the 
spiritual  movement  among  the  Paulicians  we  might  have 
seen  a  reformation  in  the  East  anticipating  the  Eeformation 
in  the  "West  by  many  centuries.  But  there  was  one  fatal 
hindrance  to  this  grand  consummation.  The  methods  of 
force  pursued  by  the  imperial  government  were  not  such 
as  could  effect  a  real  reform  of  religion.  The  contamination 
of  unscrupulous  politics  vitiated  the  hope  of  effective 
improvements  and  even  led  to  a  reversal  of  pohcy.  Leo 
the  Armenian,  although  an  Iconoclast,  endeavoured  to 
strengthen  his  position  by  pleasing  the  Church  party  in 
permitting  an  attack  on  the  Paulicians.  It  was  a  wicked 
course  of  action,  and  fatal  to  any  statesmanlike  improve- 
ment of  the  situation.  So  terrible  was  the  persecution 
which  now  broke  out,  that  some  of  the  Paulicians  murdered 
»  Photius,  i.  22. 


222  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

their  judges  and  then  fled  out  of  the  empire  and  took  refuge 
with  the  Saracens. 

Under  Michael  ii.  the  sect  again  enjoyed  peace,  and 
the  influence  of  Sergius  grew  and  spread.  Photius  ascribes 
to  him  terms  of  strange  elation  in  saying,  "  I  am  the  porter 
and  the  good  shepherd  and  the  leader  of  the  body  of 
Christ  and  the  light  of  the  house  of  God.  I,  too,  am  with 
you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  ^  But  we 
must  be  always  on  our  guard  against  the  reports  of  an 
enemy,  especially  when  he  is  also  an  ecclesiastic. 

When    the   iconoclastic  regime   was   broken,  and   the 
orthodox  party  came  back  into  power  under  the  Empress 
Theodora  (A.D.  842),  there  was  no  hope  of  a  just  treatment 
of  heretics.      Imperial  commissioners  were  now  sent  into 
the  suspected  districts,  and  those  who  refused  to  submit  to 
the  Church  were  condemned  to  death  by  hanging,  crucifixion, 
beheading,  drowning.     The  deaths  have  been  reckoned  at 
from  1 0,0 0 0  to  100,000.    Again  the  Paulicians  were  goaded 
to  measures  of  retaliation.     An  officer  in  the  imperial  army 
of  the  East,  named  Carbeas,  raised  a  rebellion,  and   was 
joined  by  5,000  of  the  troops.^     He  had  the  best  excuse 
for  his  action,  if  civil  war  is  ever  permissible,  for  he  had 
learned  that  his  father  had  been  impaled  by  the  orthodox 
officials.     This  barbarous  method  of  execution,  which  has 
been  frequently  practised   by  the  Tui'ks   in   their  recent 
massacres   of    Christians,  was  here  adopted  by  men  who 
pretended  to  be  Christians  themselves  and  who  professed 
to   be   acting  in   the   interest   of   a   holy   Church  and   in 
defence  of  its  creed.      The  maddened  insurgents  crossed 
the  border  of  the  empire,  and  with  the  permission  of  the 
caliph  fortified  the  city  of  Thephrike,^  which  became  their 
headquarters.      Thence  they  issued  in  raiding  parties,  with 
the    co-operation    of    Omar    the    Erair    of    Melitene,    and 
repeatedly  ravaged  the  frontier  of  the  empire.      Petronas, 
the  brother    of  Theodora,    who    was    entrusted    with   the 
command  of  the  imperial  army,  could  not  do  more  than 
stand  on  the  defensive.      At  length  Theodora's  son,  Michael 
*  Photius,  i.  21.  •  Continuator,  103.  '  Now  Divigri, 


THE    PAULICIANS  223 

the  Drunkard,  led  an  army  in  person  against  the  combined 
Saracens  and  Paulicians.  He  was  defeated  at  Samosata 
and  compelled"  to  flee  for  his  life.  More  than  a  hundred 
tribunes  were  taken  prisoners,  and  those  who  could  not 
ransom  themselves  were  put  to  torture.  Carbeas  was 
succeeded  in  the  leadership  of  these  fierce,  fighting  Paulicians 
by  Chrysocheir,  who,  still  in  alliance  with  the  Saracens, 
carried  the  war  into  the  heart  of  Asia  Minor,  as  far  as 
the  western  coast  and  almost  up  to  Constantinople  itself, 
pillaging  Ancyra  and  Ephesus,  Nicsea  and  Nicomedia.  At 
Ephesus  the  invaders  stabled  their  horses  in  the  cathedral, 
and  showed  the  utmost  contempt  for  the  pictures  and 
relics,  of  which  they  regarded  it  as  the  idol  temple.  The 
Emperor  Basil  I.  was  compelled  to  sue  for  peace  and  to 
offer  a  heavy  bribe  to  buy  them  off.  But  Chrysocheir 
scornfully  refused  his  terms  and  would  be  satisfied  with 
nothing  less  than  the  emperor's  retirement  to  the  West 
and  surrender  of  the  whole  of  the  Eastern  Empire.  Basil 
had  no  alternative  but  to  fight.  He  collected  all  the 
available  forces  of  the  empire  and  precipitated  them  on 
the  rebels.^  Chrysocheir  was  taken  by  surprise  and  killed 
while  in  retreat.  Thephrike  was  deserted  by  the  insurgents, 
entered  by  the  imperial  troops,  and  laid  waste  (a.d.  871). 
It  was  a  complete  and  final  victory  for  Basil,  and  it 
put  an  end  to  any  further  danger  of  serious  invasion. 
But  many  of  the  rebels  had  escaped  to  the  mountains. 
There  they  continued  their  independence  in  alliance  with 
the  Saracens,  and  from  time  to  time  joined  in  border  raids. 
Meanwhile  there  was  another  body  of  Paulicians  in 
Thrace,  the  descendants  and  converts  of  some  whom 
Constantine  Copronicus  had  transported  to  this  part  of 
Europe.  These  people  conformed  outwardly  with  the 
orthodox  Church,  and  did  not  attempt  any  revolt  on  their 
own  account ;  but  they  were  credited  with  sending  aid  to 
their  more  warlike  brethren,  to  whom  they  stood  in  the 

*  It  is  a  mistake  of  the  Continuator  to  suppose  that  Basil  crossed  the  Eu- 
phrates. Failing  to  take  Tephrice,  his  aim  was  Melitene,  the  Saracen  strong- 
hold west  of  th«  Euphrates.    See  Anderson  in  Class.  Eev.,  April  1896,  p.  139. 


224  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

relation  of  Covenanters  to  Camerouians,  or  that  of  Corsican 
villagers  to  the  banditti.  They  assiduously  propagated  their 
protestant  teaching  throughout  Thrace;  they  also  sent  to 
Bulgaria  missionaries,  who  were  very  successful  in  winning 
over  many  of  the  recent  converts  of  the  Greek  missionaries. 
The  Paulicians  in  Thrace  were  allowed  a  measure  of  home 
lule  in  return  for  their  services  in  defence  of  the  empire. 
'J'hey  held  the  city  of  Philippopolis  and  occupied  a  line  of 
villages  and  castles  in  Macedonia  and  Epirus,  and  the 
(jrthodox  inhabitants  were  dominated  by  them.  During 
the  Norman  war  in  the  reign  of  Alexius  Comnenus,  2,500 
of  them  deserted.  But  they  were  afterwards  subdued  and 
punished.  Alexius  wintered  at  Philippopolis  and  devoted 
himself  to  arguing  with  them.^  So  successful  was  he — 
according  to  his  daughter — that  she  styled  him  "  the 
Thirteenth  Apostle."  Philippopolis  was  beautified  with 
gardens  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  had  succumbed  to  the 
arguments  of  the  imperial  controversialist ;  but  while  they 
were  permitted  to  remain  there,  they  had  lost  all  power. 
We  must  not  make  too  much  of  the  admiring  princess' 
testimony  in  this  matter.  Undoubtedly  there  were  many 
stubborn  heretics  who  could  not  be  persuaded  even  by  an 
emperor's  apostolic  eloquence,  and  probably  these  people 
joined  the  new  sects  that  were  now  springing  up. 

One  of  these  sects  consisted  of  the  later  Euchites, 
who  have  been  associated  with  the  Paulicians  as  con- 
tinuators  of  the  hated  heresy.  They  were  scattered  over 
the  same  districts  of  Thrace  in  which  the  Paulicians  had  been 
planted.  All  that  we  know  of  them  is  dependent  on  a 
treatise  written  by  an  opponent,^  who  was  probably  the 
very  man  whom  the  Byzantine  government  had  sent  to 
Thrace  to  suppress  them.  We  cannot  therefore  expect  an 
unbiased  opinion  from  such  a  source.     The  Euchites  were 

*  Anna  Coranena,  Alexias,  xv.  9. 

"  AtdXo7os  irepJ  ivepyelai  Saifiifuv,  by  Michael  Psellus.  He  was  a  teacher 
of  ((hilipsojiliy  at  C(>iistaiitiiio|ile,  of  wide  knowledge  ou  a  variety  of  subjects. 
His  bunk  is  a  storehouse  of  iuforuiation  coueeniiiig  couleiuporary  iuforniatiou. 
»Ie  died  x.l).  1105. 


THE    PAULICIANS  225 

charged  with  the  cnrious  dualism  of  believing  in  two  sons 
of  God.  Satanael  the  elder  corresponds  to  the  Gnostic 
demiurge,  while  the  younger  is  Christ  to  wliom  heavenly 
things  are  assigned.  The  sect  was  said  to  worship  both 
sons,  as  springing  from  the  same  Father.  If  so,  these 
Euchites  could  not  be  Manichsean,  and  their  dualism  must 
be  different  from  the  Persian.  But  some  were  reported  only 
to  reverence  the  younger  son,  since  he  had  chosen  the  better 
part,  the  heavenly — still  without  saying  anything  ill  of  the 
senior ;  while  others  were  said  to  honour  the  elder  as  the 
first-born  and  creator  of  the  world,  and  even  to  ascribe 
envy  to  the  younger  son,  on  account  of  which  he  sends 
earthquakes,  hail,  pestilence.  But  this  is  confusing  and 
uncertain.  What  seems  clear  is  that  the  Euchites  were  an 
ecstatic  sect  who  attributed  great  value  to  long,  exciting 
prayers.  We  first  hear  the  name  as  early  as  the  fourth 
century  ;  and  traces  of  them  in  Mesopotamia,  Syria,  and 
Asia  Minor  are  to  be  met  with  again  and  again  during  the 
intermediate  ages.  There  is  therefore  reason  to  suppose 
that  they  lingered  on  to  the  time  of  the  activity  of  the 
Paulicians,  imder  whose  influence  they  were  quickened  into 
renewed  earnestness.  If  it  is  true  that  they  held  every  man 
to  be  inhabited  by  a  demon  from  his  birth,  they  would  seem 
to  have  accepted  a  very  extravagant  doctrine  of  original  sin, 
which  would  be  in  sharp  conflict  with  the  belief  of  the  Paul- 
icians, who  denied  anything  of  the  kind.  But  demonology 
was  now  rampant  in  Christendom,  and  people  would  not  look 
too  nicely  at  the  question  of  consistency  in  accepting  it. 
Still,  if  the  Euchites  held  this  view,  they  must  not  be 
identified  with  the  Paulicians,  who  show  no  trace  of  it. 

Another  body  commonly  associated  with  the  Paulicians, 
especially  in  Bulgaria,  was  that  of  the  Bogondles,  or  "  Friends 
of  God."  ^  The  fullest  account  of  their  tenets  is  given  by 
Euthymius,2  according  to  whom  they  rejected  the  Mosaic 

^  Panoplia,  Tit.  23,  Narralio  de  Bogondlis.  The  Princess  Anna  Comnena 
will  not  describe  their  tenets  lest  she  should  yolluU  her  lips.  She  writes : 
iva  /AT/  TT^v  yXwTTav  noXiivu  riju  i/iavr'^s  (Alexias,  iv.  9  ;  vol.  ii.  p.  357). 

15 


226  THE   GREEK    AND   EASTERN    CHURCHES 

writings  aud  the  God  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  regarded 
the  men  who  are  there  said  to  be  well-pleasiug  to  Him  as 
inspired  by  Satan.  Thus  tliey  invite  comparison  with  the 
ancient  Cainites.  But  a  curious  pecuHarity  in  the  views 
of  the  Old  Testament  attributed  to  them  by  Euthymius  is 
tliiit  they  reckoned  the  Psalms  and  the  Prophets  among 
the  Christian  Scriptures.  The  Pentateuch  is  not  concerned 
with  the  supreme  God.  It  only  narrates  the  doings  of  His 
elder  son  Satanael,  who  was  originally  seated  at  the  right 
hand  of  his  Father,  but  was  cast  out  of  heaven  for  plotting 
a  revolt,  together  with  the  angels  he  had  corrupted.  The 
creation  of  the  world,  including  mankind,  is  his  work,  except 
that  in  order  to  have  men  endowed  with  souls  he  is  com- 
pelled to  call  in  the  aid  of  his  Father.  This  he  does  with 
the  promise  that  the  newly  created  race  shall  take  the 
place  in  the  service  of  the  Supreme  that  has  been  vacated 
by  the  fallen  angels.  But  he  cheats  his  Father  by  seducing 
Eve  in  the  form  of  a  serpent,  and  from  her  begetting  Cain 
and  his  twin-sister  Calomena.  Then  Adam  begets  Abel  from 
Eve.  Thus  Satanael  is  the  father  of  Cain,  and  Adam  the 
father  of  Abel,  while  they  both  have  the  same  mother, 
Eve.  When  the  supreme  Father  discovers  the  fraud  he 
deprives  Satanael  of  divinity.  But  this  strange  being 
continues  to  exert  great  influence  over  mankind,  and  through 
Moses  produces  the  law  which  brings  many  evils  on 
our  race.  In  order  to  counteract  these  evils  the  Father 
sends  forth  the  Logos,  who  is  like  Michael,  the  angel  di 
great  counsel,  and  who  enters  the  Virgin  Mary,  appears 
with  a  phantom  human  body,  teaches  the  gospel,  over- 
comes Satanael  —  afterwards  called  Satan  —  ascends  to 
Satanael's  place  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  and 
finally  sinks  into  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  from  which  He 
originally  came. 

Unlike  the  Paulinists,  the  Bogomiles  rejected  water 
l)aptism,  and  allowed  only  the  baptism  of  Christ  as  a 
spmtual  baptism,  called  "  exliortation."  ^  This  was  con- 
ferred  by   a   rite   which   consisted   in    laying   the   Gospel 


THE   PAULICIANS  227 

according  to  St.  John  on  the  head  of  the  candidate, 
invoking  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  chanting  the  Lord's  Prayer. 
Like  the  Euchites,  they  attached  great  value  to  prayer, 
which  they  regarded  as  the  essence  of  religion  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  Catholic  view  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass. 
Here  they  were  Protestant  of  the  Protestants.  For  as 
with  baptism,  so  with  the  Lord's  Supper,  they  repudiated 
the  material  elements  in  the  sacrament,  and  in  this  respect 
anticipated  the  Quakers. 

Too  much  must  not  be  made  of  these  statements  in 
detail.  We  possess  no  service  book  of  the  Bogomiles,  and 
we  have  to  view  them  through  the  coloured  glasses  of 
prejudiced  antagonism.  Still,  much  of  what  is  attributed 
to  them  reads  like  a  revival,  or  perhaps  even  a  survival, 
of  second  century  Ophite  Gnosticism  ;  and  the  very  antiquity 
of  these  notions  makes  it  likely  that  they  were  really  held 
by  the  Bogomiles  more  or  less  as  described.  We  can 
hardly  suppose  that  such  old-world  fancies  would  be  raked  up 
out  of  the  rubbish  heap  of  a  past  nearly  one  thousand  years 
old  in  order  to  be  gratuitously  attributed  to  them.  There- 
fore it  is  difficult  to  resist  the  conclusion  that  the  Bogomiles 
must  have  adopted  some  system  of  dualism.  On  the 
other  hand,  there  are  Armenian  scholars  who  have  recently 
studied  the  subject,  and  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
they  are  not  Marcionite.  Now  we  saw  that  The  Key 
of  Truth  makes  it  quite  certain  that  the  Paulicians  were 
not  Marcionite.  Yet  both  have  been  so  regarded  in  the 
past.  In  the  Greek  historians  they  are  both  called 
Manichaeans.  That  is  Anna  Comnena's  title  for  all  these 
bodies  of  heretics — a  convenient  title  because  odious.  Siuv-'e 
we  now  know  that  the  Paulicians  were  grossly  libelled, 
we  may  suspect  that  the  Bogomiles  were  also  more  or 
less  seriously  maligned.  Their  dualism  was  probably  less 
pronounced  than  has  been  supposed.  Yet,  inasmuch  as 
we  cannot  deny  to  them  something  of  the  kind,  we  should 
scarcely  class  them  with  the  Paulicians.  A  prominent 
Paulinist,  a  physician  named  Basilius,  has  been  commonly 
regarded  as  the  leader  of  the  Bogomiles  of  his  day ;  but 


228  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

that  is  an  error.^  This  man  was  closely  examined  by  the 
Emperor  Alexius  at  Constantinople,  and  proving  true  to 
his  faith  burnt  at  the  hippodrome.  The  Princess  Anna 
spreads  her  description  over  several  pages  in  dilating  on 
the  scene — how  the  fire  was  constructed  of  the  biggest 
trees,  and  how  in  every  respect  this  was  a  magnificent 
triumph  for  her  father  over  the  horrible  heresy.  Her 
filial  enthusiasm  would  be  quite  touching  if  it  were  not 
80  tigerish.* 

In  the  year  1140  there  was  a  great  stir  at  the 
discovery  of  supposed  Bogomile  errors  in  the  writings  of 
Constantine  Chrysomiilus  soon  after  his  death,  and  they 
were  condemned  at  a  synod  held  under  the  patriarch  Leo 
Stypiota  in  Constantinople.  According  to  these  writings 
Church  baptism  is  inefficacious,  and  nothing  done  by  uncon- 
verted though  baptised  persons  is  of  any  value.  God's  grace 
is  received  at  the  laying  on  of  hands,  but  only  in  accordance 
with  the  measure  of  faith.  Three  years  later  two  Cappa- 
docian  bishops  were  deposed  at  another  Constantinople  synod 
as  Bogomiles.^  As  late  as  the  year  1230  the  patriarch 
Gennadius  complained  of  Bogomiles  stealing  secretly  into 
houses  and  leading  the  pious  astray.  The  Albigenses  in 
the  West — so  cruelly  slaughtered  in  the  crusade  of  Simon 
de  ]\Iontford — appear  to  be  more  or  less  closely  related  to 
these  heretics.  Probably  they  suffered  from  the  same 
libels.  These  people  may  have  held  theoretical  errors. 
But  their  real  offence  was  opposition  to  the  sacramental 
materialism  of  tlie  Church. 

*  See  Billy's  Gibbon,  chap,  liv.,  Appendix  6. 

*  Anna  Comnena,  Alexias,  xv.  9.  »  Mausi,  xxi.  583. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  GREAT  SCHISM 

(a)  Hergenrother,  Photius,  3  vols.,  1867 ;  Ratramnua,  Contra 
Grcecorum  Op^tosita ;  Anselm,  De  Proc.  Spirit.  S. ;  Mansi,  xv. 
and  xvi. 

(6)  Gibbon,  chap.  Ix.  ;  Neale,  History  of  the  Holy  Eastern  Ghurrh, 
Introd.,  vol.  ii.,  1850 ;  Tondini,  The  Pope  of  Rome  and  the 
Popes  of  the  Oriental  Church,  1871  ;  Swete,  Hist,  of  Doctrine 
of  Procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  etc.,  1876 ;  Howard,  The 
Schism  between  the  Oriental  and  the  Western  Churches,  1892  ; 
Br^hier,  Le  Schisme  Oriental  du  XI"^  Sikle,  1899. 

The  most  momentous  fact  in  the  history  of  Christendom 
during  the  Middle  Ages  is  the  separation  between  the 
Eastern  and  the  Western  Churches.  When  we  look  at 
the  two  great  communions,  each  of  which  claims  to  be  the 
one  genuine  Church,  we  see  them  to  have  so  much  in 
common  that  we  may  wonder  at  the  absolutely  irreconcil- 
able attitude  they  maintain  towards  each  other.  In 
discipline,  ritual,  and  doctrine  they  are  much  nearer  to- 
gether than  Eoman  Catholics  and  Protestants,  nearer  even 
tlmn  High  Anglicans  and  Evangelical  Churchmen.  Both 
are  episcopal,  sacerdotal,  sacramental,  orthodox  in  relation 
to  the  historic  creeds.  The  note  of  the  Eastern  Church  is 
said  to  be  orthodoxy  and  that  of  the  Western  catholicity, 
so  that  the  one  is  called  "  The  Holy  Orthodox  Church," 
and  the  other  "  The  Catholic  Church."  To  some  extent 
these  differences  of  title  are  indicative  of  distinctions  in  the 
essential  characters  of  the  bodies  they  represent.  The  one 
is  especially  concerned  with  the  defence  of  the  creed,  the 
other  with  the  maintenance  of  organic  unity.     And  yet 

229 


230  THE    OREKK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

the  Western  Church  stands  for  orthodoxy  in  its  proud 
claini  to  infallibility,  and  the  Eastern  is  equally  hitolerant 
of  heresy,  schism,  or  insubordination.  The  division  fol- 
lowed centuries  of  close  mutual  communication,  and  it  was 
so  gradual  that  much  of  the  common  thought  and  life  of 
the  patristic  trunk  from  which  they  spring  is  to  be  found 
in  each  of  these  great  branches.  As  we  contemplate  them 
in  their  stubborn  separation  we  may  be  reminded  of 
Cijleridge's  famous  metaphor  in   Christobel — 

"  They  stood  aloof,  the  scars  remaining, 
Like  cliffs  which  had  been  rent  asunder, 
A  dreary  sea  now  flows  between." 

In  tracing  the  causes  of  this  tremendous  cleavage  of 
Christendom  we  may  be  surprised  to  see  how  insignificant 
and  unimportant  some  of  them  were.  A  personal  quarrel 
between  two  patriarchs,  a  slight  step  of  advance  in  the 
implied  claims  of  a  title,  and  last  of  all,  a  subtle  point  in 
the  definition  of  the  Trinity—  these  are  among  the  influences 
that  in  course  of  time  by  their  cumulative  effect  scooped 
out  the  great  chasm,  Uke  the  water  brooks  that  running  for 
past  ages  have  at  length  separated  whole  mountains. 
Nevertheless,  we  must  not  set  down  the  final  result  to  a 
mere  chapter  of  accidents.  The  occurrence  of  various 
incidents — each  in  itself  apparently  so  unimportant — in  a 
series  coming  down  several  centuries  points  to  the  exist- 
ence of  persistent  causes  lurking  beneath.  Deep  lying, 
slow  moving,  gigantic  forces,  operating  through  centuries, 
worked  with  the  inevitability  of  fate. 

1.  First  among  these  causes  we  must  place  the  racial. 
It  is  true  that  the  Greek  and  Latin  races  were  near  akin, 
members  of  the  common  Aryan  stock  which  has  peopled 
India,  Persia,  and  Europe.  But  historically,  in  the  period 
with  which  we  are  concerned,  neither  of  these  races  was 
self  -  contained  or  unmixed  with  alien  elements.  The 
Latins  were  invigorated  and  transformed  by  an  infusion 
of  German  blood  resulting  from  successive  Gothic  invasions. 
The  Greeks,  on  the  other  hand,  were  mingled  with  a  host  of 


THE   GREAT   SCHISM  231 

Northern  and  Oriental  races,  especially  the  Sclavs  and  the 
Armenians  and  other  peoples  of  Western  Asia.  Probably 
the  Greeks  were  now  a  minority  of  the  population  of  Greece, 
being  outnumbered  by  the  Sclavs.  Constantinople  ceased  to 
be  a  Greek  city  except  in  language  and  culture.  Her  citizen- 
ship became  more  Oriental  than  Greek,  and  especially 
Armenian.  The  strongest  rulers  of  this  late  Koman  Em- 
pire which  we  call  Byzantine  were  natives  of  Asia  Minor. 
Thus  the  natural  sympathies  and  affinities  of  the  two 
branches  of  the  Church  tended  century  by  century  to 
mutual  estrangement. 

We  saw  how  at  the  beginning  the  freer  Christianity, 
the  Pauline,  that  which  was  emancipated  from  Judaism, 
was  Grecian.^  First  and  second  century  literature  in  Eome 
was  composed  in  the  Greek  language.  The  churches  of 
Lyons  and  Gaul  were  offshoots  from  the  Greek  colony  at 
Marseilles,  and  their  famous  bishop  Irenseus  was  a  native 
of  Greek- speaking  Smyrna,  who  wrote  his  work  Against 
Heretics  in  Greek.  Latin  Christian  literature  first  appeared 
in  north  Africa  a  few  years  later.  The  great  heresies  of 
the  Church  nearly  all  sprang  from  the  Eastern  branch  of 
the  Church,  and  though  at  first  they  flowed  to  Eome  and 
other  Western  places,  by  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century 
they  were  successfully  beaten  back  by  the  established 
hierarchial  system  of  the  West.  The  West  had  its  schisms 
on  questions  of  discipline — first  the  Novatian,  then  the 
Donatist,  and  its  one  great  heresy,  Pelagianism,  which  was 
concerned  with  the  human  side  of  religion.  The  East  elabor- 
ated the  orthodoxy  of  the  Church.  The  Apostles'  Creed 
grew  up  in  the  West,  but  as  a  schedule  for  catechetical 
teaching,  probably  originating  in  earlier  Eastern  schedules ; 
the  West,  too — apparently  in  the  monastery  at  Lerins — 
gave  birth  to  the  Athanasian  Creed ;  but  that  is  rather  a 
hymn  to  be  set  by  the  side  of  the  other  great  Latin  psalm 
of  praise,  the  Te  Beum,  not  properly  a  Church  creed  at  all. 
The  one  test  creed  is  the  Nicene,  and  this  is  Eastern.  Its 
gri*atest  exponents  were  in  the  East.     During  the  fourth 

1  See  pp.  3-5. 


232  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

ceiiUiry  and  aflor,  in  spite  of  tlie  sirciigili  of  Ambrose,  and 
the  massive  genius  of  Augustine,  the  intellectual  centre  of 
gravity  of  the  Church  was  in  the  East.  liome  accepted 
the  elaboration  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  from  the  East. 
It  is  true  that  by  a  flash  of  inspired  political  wisdom  she 
stepped  in  at  the  critical  moment  and  said  the  word  that 
settled  the  orthodoxy  of  the  whole  Church  for  all  subsequent 
ages ;  for  Leo's  I'ome  determined  the  decision  of  Chalcedon. 
But  it  was  tlie  thought  which  the  great  pope  had  received 
from  the  East  that  he  was  able  to  enshrine  in  that  immortal 
document.  After  this,  the  West,  absorbed  in  its  own 
-practical  problems,  came  to  view  with  weary  indifference 
the  hair-splitting  controversies  of  the  Eastern  Church.  She 
was  concerned  for  orthodoxy,  and  again  and  again  she  struck 
in  with  a  word  of  authority  to  save  the  situation..  But  as 
first  the  Nestorians  by  the  Euphrates,  and  then  the  Mono- 
physites  in  Egypt  and  Syria,  were  cut  off,  Eome  came  to 
have  less  and  less  vital  connection  with  what  was  now 
essentially  the  Byzantine  Church,  identical  in  area  with  the 
Byzantine  Empire. 

2.  A  second  influence  that  worked  gradually  but  with 
inevitable  consequences  towards  this  cleavage  of  the  Church 
was  the  separation  of  the  Eastern  and  Western  Empires, 
followed  by  the  slow  dissolution  of  the  latter,  and  then  its 
marvellous  resurrection  as  an  independent  power,  no  longer 
a  Roman  Empire  at  all  except  in  name.  This  process  began 
when  the  emperors  ceased  to  treat  Eome  as  the  centre  of 
government.  Diocletian  thoroughly  Orientalised  the  ad- 
ministration with  its  headquarters  at  Nicomedia.  But  the 
most  significant  fact  in  this  connection  was  the  founding  of 
Constantinople.  When  Constantine  transferred  the  centre 
of  social  influence  and  intellectual  life,  as  well  as  the  centre 
of  government,  from  the  banks  of  the  Tiber  to  the  shores  of 
the  Bosphorus,  he  began  to  make  a  fissure  which  nothing 
coidd  stop.  Subsequently  this  severance  was  widened  by 
the  Gothic  invasions — the  establishment  of  a  Gothic  king- 
dom, only  nominally  subject  to  the  emperor  in  the  East  as 
its  suzerain  lord — the  failure  of  the  exarch  at  Eavenna  to 


THE   GREAT   SCHISM  233 

shelter  Italy  from  the  awful  scourge  of  the  Huns — and  the 
success  first  of  Leo,  then  of  Gregory,  in  stepping  into  the 
breach  and  saving  civilisation  and  the  CJnirdi,  when  their 
professed  protector  at  Constantinople  liad  proved  to  be  an 
impotent  defence.  Meanwhile  in  the  East  the  Church 
was  becoming  more  and  more  identified  with  the  empire. 
Theie  she  was  tied  hands  and  feet  by  the  imperial  will. 
Emperors  and  empresses  appointed  and  deposed  patriarchs 
and  bishops.  The  Byzantine  Church  was  being  converted 
into  a  department  of  the  highly  organised  bureaucratic  Byzan- 
tine Empire.  Naturally  the  West  asked.  Why  should  tlie 
free  Latin  Church  tie  itself  down  to  the  servile  ways  of  the 
subject  Greek  Church  ?  If  the  emperor  could  not  protect 
the  Church  in  the  West  there  was  no  reason  why  she  should 
not  be  independent  of  his  servants  in  the  East.  When  the 
pope  crowned  Charles  the  Great  as  emperor  at  Eome  on 
Christmas  Day,  A.D.  800,  he  definitely  broke  with  the  emperor 
at  Constantinople,  in  whose  eyes  the  Frank  was  a  usurper. 
Again  the  marvellous  political  insight  of  Eome  proved- 
to  be  correct.  It  was  useless  to  look  across  the  Adriatic 
for  protection  against  the  Lombards ;  then  the  wise  course 
was  to  find  safety  in  the  rising  power  across  the  Alps.  But 
the  price  for  the  new  alliance  had  to  be  paid.  Henceforth 
the  papacy,  with  all  its  dreams  of  a  universal  Church,  must 
content  itself  in  fact  with  being  the  dominant  influence 
only  in  Western  churches,  and  see  the  other  half  of 
Christendom  drift  wholly  out  of  its  sphere  of  authority. 
3.  A  third  influence  tending  to  the  severance  of  the 
two  churches  is  to  be  detected  in  the  rivalry  between  the 
patriarchates  of  Eome  and  Constantinople,  and  especially  in 
the  lofty  claims  put  forth  by  the  papacy.  We  saw  how 
gravely  Gregory  the  Great  had  expostulated  with  John  the 
Faster,  when  that  patriarch  had  laid  claim  to  the  title  of 
"  CEcumenical  Bishop."  ^  Long  before  this,  though  not 
urging  precisely  the  same  titular  claim,  the  popes  had  made 
great  demands  on  the  ground  of  their  succession  to  the 
chair  of  Peter.      The  council  of  Sardica   (a.d.   344)   had 

^  See  p.  140. 


234  THE   GREEK   AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

given  a  right  of  appeal  on  the  part  of  a  bishop  who  had 
been  deposed  by  his  fellow-bishops  to  Julius  the  bishop  of 
Kome.  But  it  is  a  matter  of  dispute  whether  this  was 
intended  to  refer  only  to  this  particular  pope  or  also  to  his 
successors,  and  further  how  far  he  might  take  the  initiative. 
It  is  to  be  observed  that  in  this  council  the  Eastern  as 
well  as  the  Western  Church  was  represented ;  there  were 
bishops  from  Egypt,  Arabia,  Palestine,  Thessaly,  and  other 
Oriental  districts.  But  since  the  Eusebian  bishops  had  with- 
drawn and  Hosius  of  Cordova  was  presiding,  it  is  possible 
that  there  was  a  majority  of  Western  bishops  when  the 
canon  was  voted.  Then  Leo  the  Great  (a.d.  440-461) 
put  forth  high  papal  claims,  referring  to  Peter  and  his 
successors  as  constituting  the  rock  on  which  the  Church  is 
founded.^  Peter  is  the  pastor  and  prince  of  the  whole 
Church.  To  resist  his  authority  is  an  act  of  impious  pride 
and  the  sure  way  to  hell.  Considering  the  many  times  in 
which  the  popes  make  great  demands  in  various  ways,  it  is 
difficult  to  think  Gregory  the  Great  wholly  disinterested 
when  he  rebukes  his  brother  at  Constantinople  for  arrogance 
in  calling  himself  the  "  (Ecumenical  Bishop."  Gregory 
claims  some  merit  for  not  adopting  the  title  for  himself  on 
tlie  ground  that  it  has  been  allowed  to  earlier  popes ;  but 
liere  he  is  not  accurate,  for  the  previous  use  of  the  term 
has  been  generic,  applying  to  all  the  patriarchs,^  whereas 
now  the  question  turns  on  the  exclusive  use  of  it  for  one 
patriarch  in  particular. 

The  contiict  between  pope  and  patriarch  reached  an 
acute  condition  in  the  ninth  century.  Ignatius,  the 
patriarch  of  Constantinople,  had  dared  to  rebuke  the  im- 
morality of  the  Cifisar  Bardas,  refusing  to  administer  the 
sacrament  to  him  on  Advent  Sunday,  A.D.  857.  No 
ecclesiastic  in  the  Eastern  Church  could  follow  with  im- 
punity the  bold  example  of  Ambrose  in  the  West,  when 
he  stood  at  his  church  door  and  refused  admission  to 
the  Emperor  Theodosius.      Ignatius  was  arrested  and  im- 

*  e.g.  Letters,  cv.,  cxx. 

'  See  Dudden,  Gregory  tlic  Great,  vol.  ii.  pp.  209  £f. 


thp:  great  schism  235 

prisoned  on  a  false  accusation  of  sedition,  and  in  his  place 
the  emperor  nominated  and  a  synod  formally  elected  a  very 
remarkable  man  to  the  headship  of  the  Byzantine  Church. 
This  was  Photius,  who  has  been  greatly  maligned  by  the 
papal  party,  but  who  appears  to  have  been  really  of  high 
personal  character,  though  haughty  and  ambitious.  Eminent 
for  learning  in  a  church  that  has  prided  itself  on  its 
scholarship,  Photius  mentions  no  less  than  280  pagan  and 
Christian  authors  whose  works  he  has  read.  He  comes 
only  second  to  John  of  Damascus  among  the  leading  church- 
men of  the  later  Byzantine  period.  If  John  was  the  last 
of  the  Fathers,  Photius  may  be  considered  the  last  of  the 
scholarly  leaders  of  first  rank  in  the  Greek  Church.  His 
controversial  writings  reveal  intellectual  contempt  spring- 
ing from  superior  knowledge  and  culture,  which  he  does 
not  scruple  to  express  in  dealing  with  the  pretensions  of 
his  western  rival,  the  pope,  a  man  his  inferior  both  in 
learning  and  in  brain  power.  Here  we  see  the  age-long 
scorn  of  the  finished  Greek  for  the  ruder  Latin  civiHsation. 

Photius  was  a  layman  when  he  was  suddenly  called  to 
his  lofty  post  in  the  Church.  But  he  was  a  man  of  noble 
birth  and  rank,  and  he  then  held  the  office  of  chief 
Secretary  of  State.  He  was  rushed  through  the  minor 
orders  with  a  haste  that  scandalised  the  proprieties,  taking 
one  step  a  day,  till  he  was  promoted  to  the  highest  place  of 
alL  Ambrose  was  a  layman  when  he  was  elected  bishop 
of  Milan  by  acclamation,  and  though  he  took  some  time  for 
preparation  and  his  promotion  was  not  quite  so  rapid  as 
that  of  Photius,  it  was  somewhat  similar.  In  both  cases, 
proved  ability  in  the  administration  of  civil  affairs  was 
taken  as  a  quahfication  for  the  regulation  of  Church 
government.  But  there  was  one  vital  difference  between 
the  two  cases.  Ambrose  had  been  elected  by  the  people  of 
Milan  in  a  popular  assembly ;  but  Photius  was  forced  on 
the  people  of  Constantinople  by  the  government. 

These  high-handed  proceedings  met  with  serious  opposi- 
tion, and  in  order  to  settle  the  matter  the  Emperor 
Michael  invited  the  pope,  Nicholas  i.,  to  send  delegates  to  a 


236  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

general  council.  Tliis  was  done,  and  the  council  was  held 
at  Constantino] .Ic  in  the  year  861.  It  deposed  Ignatius, 
although  he  liad  tlic  support  of  the  people,  and  its  decision 
was  ratified  by  the  papal  delegates.  Then  the  friends  of 
Ignatius,  that  is  to  say,  the  real  representatives  of  the  Greek 
Church,  appealed  to  the  pope,  who  threw  over  his  delegates, 
and  convoked  a  synod  at  Eome,  which  decided  in  favour  of 
Ignatius,  and  pronounced  excommunication  on  Photius  in 
case  he  should  dare  to  retain  the  patriarchate  (a.d.  863). 
Photius  replied  by  insisting  on  the  equality  in  rank  of  the 
patriarchs  of  Rome  and  Constantinople.  The  emperor  sum- 
moned another  council  at  Constantinople  four  years  later,  at 
which  the  patriarchs  of  Antioch,  Alexandria,  and  Jerusalem 
were  represented ;  and  this  council  pronounced  a  sentence 
of  deposition  on  the  Roman  pontiff.  But  Photius  was  in  ? 
precarious  position,  only  able  to  hold  on  by  the  support  of 
his  patron  Michael ;  and  when  that  was  removed  by  the 
murder  of  the  emperor,  he  was  seized  and  imprisoned  in  a 
convent,  and  Ignatius  restored  to  the  patriarchate.  In  the 
year  869  a  council  was  held  in  St.  Sophia,  which  the 
Latins  reckon  as  the  "Eighth  CEcumenical  Council"  It 
condemned  Photius  and  confirmed  the  right  of  Ignatius  to 
be  patriarch  of  Constantinople. 

This  miserable  quarrel  ended  happily.  The  rival 
patriarchs  were  both  really  good  men,  and  ultimately  they 
were  reconciled.  Even  Ignatius,  who  had  owed  so  much 
to  the  papacy,  could  not  endure  the  arrogant  interference  of 
I'ope  John  viii.  with  the  missionary  work  which  the  Greek 
Church  was  carrying  on  in  Bulgaria  with  remarkable 
success;  and  the  pope  had  threatened  to  excommunicate 
lum  too,  wlieu  death  removed  him  from  his  difficulties 
(Oct.  23,  877).  Three  days  later  Photius  was  quietly 
restored  to  the  patriarchate.  It  was  not  to  be  expected 
that  the  pope  would  find  him  more  complacent.  In  the 
year  879,  a  council,  three  times  as  large  as  Ignatius's  council, 
met  with  much  pomp  in  St.  Sophia,  pronounced  the 
previous  council  a  fraud,  re-affirmed  the  Nicene  Creed 
without  the  Filioque  clause  on  which  the  Latins  were  in- 


THE  GREAT   SCHISM  237 

sisting,  and  ended  by  eulogising  the  virtues  and  learning 
of  Photius.  This  council  is  sometimes  reckoned  by  the 
Orientals  as  the  "Eighth  CEcumenical  Council,"  though 
generally  only  seven  general  councils  are  allowed  in  the 
East.  Thus  if  an  eighth  is  to  be  counted  at  all — and  that 
is  the  case  definitely  in  the  Eoman  Church,  though  less 
decisively  in  the  Greek — it  is  taken  differently  in  the 
West  and  in  the  East.  With  the  Latins  it  is  Ignatius's 
council  of  A.D.  869  ;  with  the  Greeks  it  is  Photius's  council 
of  A.D.  879.  The  papal  delegates  assented  to  the  decision 
of  the  latter  council,  and  deceived  the  pope  on  their  return 
to  Eome  by  representing  that  it  had  conceded  his  Bulgarian 
claims.  When  he  learnt  the  truth  and  discovered  that  it 
had  done  nothing  of  the  kind,  he  pronounced  an  anathema 
on  Photius  for  deceiving  and  degrading  the  Holy  See.  But 
it  does  not  appear  that  the  patriarch  had  had  any  share  in 
the  diplomacy  which  the  papal  legates  had  practised. 
Photius  ended  his  days  in  learned  leisure  at  a  monastery, 
and  died  in  the  year  891.  The  feud  between  the  two 
churches  now  went  on  and  it  only  ended  with  final  and 
complete  severance. 

4.  The  last  stage  of  the  long  quarrel  was  concerned 
with  the  controversy  on  the  Filioque  clause  of  the  Nicene 
Creed.  The  irony  of  history  is  nowhere  more  apparent 
than  in  the  fact  that  the  chief  difference  between  the  two 
great  historic  churches  is  so  fine  a  point  of  doctrine 
that  ordinary  people  could  never  guess  its  supposed  im- 
portance. Nobody  could  pretend  to  decide  it  without 
penetrating  into  the  profound  mystery  of  the  Being  of  God. 
Both  churches  accept  the  Nicene  Creed  as  confirmed  in  the 
great  Church  councils ;  both  are  loyal  to  the  idea  of  the 
homousion,  and  to  the  full  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
well  as  that  of  the  Son ;  both  are  thoroughly  Trinitarian. 
But  while  the  Eastern  Church  maintains  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  proceeds  from  the  Father  alone  though  through  the 
Son,  the  Western  Church  contends  that  He  proceeds  from 
the  Father  and  also  from  the  Son  as  a  joint  source.  Not 
only  does  the  Greek  Church  object  to  the  latter  idea,  it 


238  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

accuses  the  Latin  Chui'ch  of  a  wrong  action  in  venturing  to 
insert  a  word  in  the  venerated  Nicene  Creed.  The  clause 
in  the  Latin  version  asserting  the  procession  of  the  Holy- 
Spirit  originally  ran:  "  Qui  ex patre procedit."  The  Eoman 
Church  now  renders  this  clause :  "  Qui  ex  Patre  Filioque 
procedit."  The  insertion  of  Filioque  at  this  point  in  the 
creed  became  the  chief  ground  of  division  between  the  two 
churches,  and  it  has  remained  so  down  to  the  present 
day  without  any  hope  of  reconciliation,  each  community 
anathematising  the  other  on  account  of  the  fine  point  of 
doctrine. 

As  with  most  controversies,  it  was  possible  for  each 
party  to  point  to  testimony  in  the  writings  of  venerated 
Fathers  of  antiquity  that  seemed  to  favour  its  own  specific 
contention.  That  is  nearly  always  the  case,  because  it  is 
controversy  that  sharpens  definitions  ;  and  inasmuch  as 
there  is  certainly  something  to  be  said  for  both  sides  of  an 
argument  in  which  sincere  and  able  men  are  engaged,  it  is 
pretty  certain  that  before  the  ideas  crystallise  on  one  side 
or  the  other  they  will  be  found  in  a  mixed  state  of  solution. 
Thus  Tertullian  in  the  West  seemed  to  favour  what  was 
adopted  later  as  the  Eastern  view,  when  he  said,  Spiritum 
non  aliunde  puto  quam  a  Patre  per  Filium}  and  Hilary  of 
Poitiers,  the  most  important  literary  defender  of  the 
Nicene  Creed  in  the  West  during  the  fourth  century,  writes, 
Loqui  de  Eo  {i.e.  the  Holy  Spirit)  non  necesse  est,  Qui  a 
Patre  et  Filio  auctorihu^  confitendus  est,^  and  at  the  close, 
referring  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  says,  ex  te  per  unigenitum 
suum ;  ^  and  again  explicitly,  A  Patre  procedit  Spiritus 
Sanctus,  sed  a  Filio  et  a  Patre  mittitur.*  On  the  other 
hand,  Athanasius  in  the  East  seems  to  anticipate  the 
Western  view  when  he  writes,  "  The  Word  gives  to  the 
Spirit,  and  whatever  the  Spirit  hath,  He  hath  from  the 
Word."  ^  This  may  not  refer  to  original  being.  St.  Basil 
is  more  definite,  writing,  "  Since  the  Holy  Spirit  .  .  .  de- 

1  Adv.  Praxean.  4.  ^  j)g  y^j-„    jj   29.  3  /j^_  ^^  57, 

*  Ibid.  viii.  20— an  importaut  passage  ilistussing  this  very  question. 

*  CoiU.  Ar.  iii.  2b. 


THE   GREAT   SCHISM  239 

pendeth  ^  from  the  Son,  and  hath  His  being  dependent  ^ 
from  the  Father  as  its  cause,  whence  also  He  pro- 
ceedeth."  ^  The  latter  part  of  this  sentence  would  appear 
to  favour  the  Eastern  view.  Nevertheless  in  another 
place  Basil  writes,  "  God  generates,  not  as  man,  but  truly 
generates.  And  that  which  is  generated  of  Him  sends 
forth  the  Spirit  through  His  mouth."  *  On  the  other  hand, 
Gregory  Nazianzen  definitely  asserts  that  the  Spirit  pro- 
ceeds from  the  Father  only.^ 

Ambrose  appears  to  be  the  first  to  teach  in  express 
terms  that  the  Holy  Spirit  proceeds  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son.  Thus  he  writes,  "  The  Holy  Spirit  also 
when  he  proceeds  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,®  is  not 
separated  from  the  Father,  is  not  separated  from  the 
Son  " ;  ^  and  Epiphanius  frequently  teaches  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  from  both.^ 

Augustine  frequently  teaches  that  the  procession  is 
from  both  the  Father  and  the  Son.^  As  yet,  however, 
nobody  had  ventured  to  tamper  with  the  venerated  creed 
so  as  to  insert  this  idea  into  it.  As  far  as  has  yet  been 
pointed  out,  "  the  first  known  instance  in  which  the 
Filioque  was  inserted  into  the  Processional  Clause  of  the 
Symbol  "  ^°  is  at  the  third  council  of  Toledo  (a.d.  589).  It 
reappears  in  the  fourth  (a.d.  633)  and  sixth  (a.d.  638) 
councils  of  Toledo.  The  doctrine  was  received  in  England 
at  the  council  of  Hatfield  (a.d.  680).  Passing  on  to  the 
eighth  century,  we  find  Tarasius  in  his  letter  announcing 
his  elevation  to  the  patriarchate  of  Constantinople  writing 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  "  proceeding  from  the  Father  through 
the    Son "  —  the    Greek    doctrine.     This    expression    was 

^  ijpTrp-ai.  *  ^^rj/j.fj.it'ov.  ^  Epis.  xxxviiL  3. 

*  Adv.  Eunomium.         '  Orat.  1  ;  De  Filio,  1. 

'  Cum  proccdit  a  Patre  et  Filio.  '  De  S'p.  S.  i.  10. 

^irapd  {Ancor.  Ixvii.),  i^  (Heer.  Ixxiv.  7)  of  Both,  and  vapi.  of  the 
Father,  but  e|  of  the  Son  {Ancor.  viii.  9). 

'e.g.  Trin.  xv.  48  unA passim. 

^^  Howard,  The  Filioque  and  the  Schism,  pp.  18,  19 — a  book  to  which  I 
am  indebted  for  much  information  on  this  subject,  and  the  quotations  given 
above 


240  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

vehemently  disputed  in  the  Caroline  Books — theological 
writings  claiming  the  sanction  of  Charles  the  Great,  who 
forwarded  them  to  Pope  Hadrian,  and  the  controversy  was 
now  fully  alive.  After  a  council  at  Aix-la-Chapelle  (ad. 
809),  Charles  sent  legates  to  confer  with  the  pope  (Leo 
III.)  on  the  suhject.  Leo,  while  approving  of  the  doc- 
trine, hesitated  about  the  insertion  of  it  in  the  venerated 
creed.  Four  years  later  the  council  of  Aries  formally 
sanctioned  the  double  procession. 

After  this,  when  the  quarrel  broke  out  between  Photius 
and  Nicolas,  the  patriarch  charged  the  Eoman  Church  with 
heresy  for  accepting  what  he  reckoned  an  error  in  the 
Western  doctrine  concerning  the  Holy  Spirit.  Still,  in 
spite  of  this  difficiilty  and  all  other  grounds  of  quarrel, 
there  was  no  formal  severance  between  the  two  churches 
till  the  middle  of  the  eleventh  century.  Meanwhile  the 
clause  which  was  the  source  of  so  much  contention  was 
being  gradually  adopted  by  all  the  local  churches  in  the 
West.  It  is  a  question  whether  the  insertion  of  it  in  the 
creed  was  ever  formally  authorised  by  the  Church  of  Piome 
in  a  council  at  which  the  pope  was  represented.^ 

We  now  approach  the  final  rupture.  Michael  Ceru- 
larius,  who  was  ordained  patriarch  of  Constantinople  in 
the  year  1043,  addressed  an  encyclical  letter  to  the 
bishops  of  Apulia,  some  nine  or  ten  years  later,  in  which 
he  sought  closer  union  with  the  Western  Church,  at  the 
same  time  mentioning  some  of  the  difficulties  in  the  way 
of  such  union,  the  chief  of  which  was  the  Western  use  of 
unleavened  bread  at  the  Eucharist.^  The  last  item  that  he 
referred  to  was  the  Dogma  of  the  Procession  from  the  Son. 
This  letter  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  pope,  Leo  ix.,  who 
addressed  a  reply  to  the  patriarch  in  a  very  different 
spirit,  ending  with  a  threat  that  if  necessary  he  would 
not  "  Seethe  the  kid  in  its  mother's  milk,"  but  "  scrub  its 
mangy  hide  with  biting  vinegar  and  salt."  ^     The  patriarch 

'  Dr.  Dollinger  attributed  the  insertion  of  it  to  Pope  Benedict  viii.  on  the 
demand  of  the  Emperor  Heniy  il.,  in  a.d.  1014.     See  Howard,  op.  cit.  p.  38. 
'  Pro  eo  maxiino,  nuud  dt  azyml^,  etc.  ^  Mansi,  xix.  641). 


THE   GREAT   SCHISM  241 

refusing  to  submit  to  the  pope's  directions,  the  papal 
legates  formally  laid  on  the  altar  of  St.  Sophia  a  sentence 
of  anathema  denouncing  eleven  evil  doctrines  and  practices 
of  Michael  and  his  supporters,  and  cursing  them  with  the 
awful  imprecation  :  "  Let  them  be  Anathema  Maranatha, 
with  Simoniacs,  Valerians,  Arians,  Donatists,  Nicholaitans, 
Severians,  Pneumatomachi,  Manichees,  and  Nazarenes,  and 
with  all  heretics ;  yea,  with  the  devil  and  his  angels. 
Amen.  Amen.  Amen"  (July  16,  a.d.  1054).  The 
schism  was  now  complete. 

The  modern  mind  is  naturally  amazed  that  so  huge  a 
disaster  to  Christendom  could  be  seriously  promoted  by  so 
fine  a  point  of  controversy  as  the  Filioque  clause.  We 
have  seen  that  this  was  by  no  means  the  only  ground  of 
contention.  It  was  but  the  last  ingredient  in  a  bitter  cup 
which  the  Eastern  Church  refused  to  take  from  the  hands 
of  overbearing  Eoman  prelates.  Then  we  must  remember 
that,  all  along,  the  deplorable  mistake  of  substituting  doc- 
trinal orthodoxy  for  personal  faith  was  maintained  by  both 
branches  of  the  Church.  Nor  was  the  doctrinal  point 
under  dispute  without  what  people  thought  to  be  serious 
consequences.  Some  have  revived  it  in  recent  times. 
When  the  idea  of  the  immanence  of  God  has  suggested 
that  the  Divine  presence  could  be  secured  without  the 
mediation  of  Christ,  it  has  been  argued  that  the  Spirit  of 
God  comes  to  us  from  Christ ;  that  otherwise  the  special 
Christian  gospel  would  vanish.  But  this  was  not  the  ques- 
tion at  the  time  of  the  dispute.  It  was  not  how  we 
receive  the  Spirit ;  but  how  the  mysterious  existence  of 
the  Third  Person  in  the  Trinity  comes  to  be  in  itself.  The 
Greeks  allowed  that  we  receive  the  Spirit  through  Christ 
Still  their  opponents  thought  that  the  honour  of  Christ 
was  involved  in  the  controversy.  It  was  in  the  West,  in 
St.  Augustine  and  the  Athanasian  Creed,  for  example,  that 
the  absolute  equality  of  the  Son  with  the  Father  was  em- 
phasised. The  Filioque  clause  seemed  to  agree  with  that 
equality,  the  Greek  rejection  of  the  clause  to  discredit  it 

i6 


CHAPTER   VII 

THE   CRUSADES 

(o)  Official  reports  and  letters  from  individual  Crusaders  ;  Fulcher, 
Gesta  Peregrinantium  Francm-um,  the  diary  of  a  witness ; 
Albert  of  Aix,  Chronicle,  second-hand,  from  eye-witnesses, 
with  masses  of  details  uncritically  handled ;  William 
of  Tyre,  Historia  Berum  in  partibiis  transmarinis  gestarum, 
also  in  touch  with  eye-witnesses,  and  using  written  sources, 
a  book  composed  with  discrimination  and  literary  skill,  but 
mingling  legend,  toned  down,  with  historical  fact — the 
Herodotus  of  the  Middle  Ages ;  Anna  Comnena,  Alexias  ; 
Nicetas,  Historia ;  Chronicles  of  the  Crusades  (Bohn) ;  The 
Chronicle  of  Morea  (14th  century  ;  ed.  Schmidtt). 

(b)  Gibbon,  chaps.  Iviii.-lxi. ;  Michaud,  History  of  the  Crusades  (Eng. 
trans.),  popular,  rich  in  incident,  untrustworthy ;  H.  von  Sybel, 
History  and  Literature  of  the  Crusades  (Eng.  trans.,  edited 
by  Lady  Duff  Gordon),  a  valuable  critical  study  ;  Archer  and 
Kingsford,  The  Crusades  ("  Story  of  the  Nations ") ;  S.  Lane 
Poole,  Saladin,  and  the  Fall  of  the  Kingdom  of  Jerusalem. 

For  the  most  part  the  Crusades  have  been  studied  from 
the  standpoint  of  Western  Europe,  since  it  was  there  that 
they  originated.  Instigated  by  the  Latin  Church,  they  were 
carried  on  by  swarms  of  devotees,  fanatics,  penitents,  and 
adventurers  from  France,  Germany,  Italy,  England.  While 
the  goal  of  their  enterprise  was  in  the  East,  and  while  the 
people  most  seriously  affected  by  their  achievements  were 
Orientals,  the  Eastern  Church  and  Empire  took  but  a 
small  part  in  the  actual  movement,  which  was  a  great 
upheaval  and  eruption  of  Western  Christendom.  Neverthe- 
less, it  falls  in  with  the  object  of  the  present  volume  to 
study  the  Crusades  from  the  novel  standpoint  of  that  half 
of   Christendom   which  was  the  witness  of   the   romantic 

212 


THE   CRUSADES  243 

feats  of  chivalry  that  adorned  these  quaint  wars  fought  on 
its  own  soil.  Too  often  it  was  the  victim  of  their  disastrous 
consequences.  What  did  the  Crusades  mean  to  the  Eastern 
Church  ?  Did  they  bring  it  liberation,  security,  prosperity  ? 
That  is  the  question  which  forces  itself  upon  us  when  we 
plant  ourselves  in  imagination  at  Constantinople  or  Antioch, 
at  Tyre  or  Jerusalem,  and  watch  the  sanguinary  fights  of 
Latins  and  Teutons  with  Turks  and  Saracens. 

If  we  would  take  a  broad  view  of  the  situation,  we 
must  not  be  satisfied  to  regard  the  Crusades  either  as  mere 
freaks  of  fanaticism,  or  as  only  European  police  manoeuvres 
for  the  protection  of  pilgrims.  Their  immediate  object 
was  recovery  of  the  sacred  sites  of  Palestine  from  desecra- 
tion by  the  infidels,  and  their  direct  provocation  was  jhe 
ill-treatment  at  times  endured  by  people  who  visited  those 
sacred  sites.  Palmers'  tales  told  by  the  fireside  and  in 
the  market-place  stirred  the  minds  of  men  in  the 
towns  and  villages  of  Europe.  But  when  we  orientate  the 
whole  movement  we  see  that  these  wars  take  their  place 
in  the  age-long  conflict  between  Islam  and  Christendom. 
That  conflict  began  in  the  seventh  century  when  Mohammed 
started  on  his  conquering  career ;  it  will  not  cease  till  the 
cross  is  seen  again  on  the  dome  of  St.  Sophia  in  place  of  the 
usurping  crescent,  till  the  last  Turkish  sultan  is  dethroned, 
and  the  last  Turkish  pasha  dismissed.  Nevertheless  these 
strange  enterprises  had  their  own  peculiar  features,  which 
happily  are  without  parallel  in  history ;  for  the  world  has 
never  seen  less  wisdom  or  greater  incompetence,  attended 
by  more  waste  of  life  and  deeper  misery,  in  proportion  to 
the  purpose  pursued  and  the  end  accomplished. 

In  their  actual  inception  the  Crusades  sprang  from  the 
pilgrimages.  As  early  as  the  fourth  century  a  continuous 
stream  of  immigrants  from  Western  Europe  was  pouring 
into  Palestine.  Some  came  and  went,  like  the  modern 
tourists ;  others  remained  to  live  and  die  in  the  Holy  Land. 
When  Jerome  settled  down  for  life  in  a  cave  at  Bethlehem, 
the  fame  of  so  eminent  a  man  induced  many  to  follow  his 
example.    Under  his  influence  Paula  came  from  Eome,  and 


244  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

being  a  woman  of  social  position  and  religious  reputation,  she 
induced  many  other  Eoman  ladies  to  join  her.  There  were 
two  colonies  of  ascetics  from  Italy — one  of  men,  and  the  other 
of  women — settled  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Jerusalem. 
These  processes  —  the  settling  of  immigrants  and  the 
pilgrimages  of  temporary  visitors  —  continued  without 
intermission  except  in  times  of  war.  Thus  Western 
Europe  was  always  in  touch  witli  the  East.  In  the  break- 
up of  civilisation  and  the  consequent  deepening  ignorance 
of  the  Dark  Ages,  the  value  of  relics  as  fetishes  rose ;  and 
then  those  primary  but  untransferable  reHcs,  the  scenes  of 
our  Lord's  birth  at  Bethlehem,  and  death  and  burial  at 
Jerusalem,  came  to  be  adored  pre-eminently. 

The  Persian  occupation  in  the  sixth  century  only  put  a 
temporary  check  to  the  pilgrimages  ;  and  the  Mohammedan 
conquest  of  the  country,  which  followed  so  soon  after  its 
recovery  by  Heraclius,  hindered  them  much  less  than  might 
have  been  expected,  for  the  early  caliphs  were  more 
tolerant  of  unbelievers  than  the  Christian  emperors  of 
heretics.  Especially  was  this  the  case  with  the  enlightened 
and  mild  caliphs  of  the  Fatimite  line  who  resided  in  Egypt, 
and  it  was  a  good  thing  for  the  pilgrims  that  Jerusalem 
came  under  their  authority  and  protection.  One  short 
interval  of  fearful  persecution  occurred  under  the  mad 
caliph,  El-Hakim,  who  ended  by  outraging  the  principles 
of  his  fellow-Mohammedans,  in  proclaiming  himself  the 
creator  of  the  universe,  and  was  slain  by  order  of  his  sister 
as  a  menace  to  Islam.  This  terrible  man  had  most 
cruelly  oppressed  both  the  Jews  and  the  Christians  under 
his  power.  It  is  said  that  in  the  year  1010  he  ordered 
the  destruction  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre ;  if  so,  his  order 
could  not  have  been  effectually  executed. 

A  far  worse  calamity  was  soon  to  follow.  The  Turks 
swarmed  over  Syria  and  Asia  Minor,  defeating  the  effemi- 
nate Arab  caliphs  of  the  Abbasside  line.  Toghrul,  the 
grandson  of  Seljuk,  had  adopted  Mohammedanism,^  and  in 

'Michael  the  Syrian  gives  three  reasons  for  the  ready  amalgaiuatiou  of 
the  Turks  with  the  Arabs  anij  theij*  speedy  adoption  of  Islam — (1)  their 


THE    CRUSADES  245 

the  year  1055)  after  couquering  Persia  and  regions  farther 
west,  he  was  appointed  sultan,  or  vice-regent  for  the 
caliph.  This  man  was  succeeded  by  his  nephew,  Alp 
Arslan,  who  conquered  Armenia  and  defeated  the  Emperor 
Romanus  Diogenes  at  the  battle  of  Manzikert  (a.d.  1071). 
All  Anatolia  was  now  at  the  mercy  of  the  Turks,  who 
continued  to  press  north  and  west  till  they  threatened 
Constantinople.  In  the  year  1081  the  sultan  fixed  his 
headquarters  at  Nica^a,  the  sacred  centre  of  Christian 
orthodoxy.  Happily  for  the  world  the  confusion  into  which 
the  Byzantine  Empire  had  been  thrown  by  the  defeat  of 
Romanus  was  now  subsiding,  and  a  strong  prince,  Alexius 
Comnenus,  was  on  the  throne.  But  he  could  do  little  to 
stem  the  spreading  flood  of  barbarism.  A  ghastly  peril 
threatened  the  remnant  of  the  empire  of  the  Caesars. 
The  Arabs  had  received  culture  from  Greeks  and  Persians ; 
and  their  policy  had  become  pacific  and  moderately  liberal. 
But  the  Turks  were  fierce,  brutal  Mongols  from  Central 
Asia,  little  better  than  savages,  spreading  destruction  and 
ruin  in  their  path.  Their  capture  of  Syria  and  Asia 
Minor  threatened  the  ruin  of  civilisation  throughout  those 
regions  which  for  centuries  had  been  in  the  van  of  human 
progress.  Happily  they  soon  came  to  some  extent  under 
Persian  civilising  influences,  or  all  would  have  been  lost. 

In  his  despair  the  emperor  sent  urgent  requests  to 
Europe  for  assistance.  Doubts  have  been  thrown  on 
a  letter  he  is  said  to  have  addressed  to  Robert,  Count  of 
Flanders  —  a  brother-in-law  of  William  the  Conqueror, 
especially  for  the  reason  that  in  it  Alexius  mentions  the 
beauty  of  the  women  of  Constantinople  as  an  inducement 
for  the  warriors  of  the  West  to  come  to  the  rescue  of  his 
city.  The  letter  exists  in  several  forms,  and  therefore 
manifestly  it  has  been  tampered  with.  While  we  cannot  be 
sure  of  its  original  features  in  every  particular,  there  can 

own  earlier  Monotheism ;  (2)  the  fact  that  they  found  Turkish  immigrants 
already  settled  in  Persia,  which  had  been  won  over  by  the  Mohammedan 
power  some  time  previously  ;  (3)  tlie  service  of  Turks  as  mercenaries  in  the 
army  of  the  caliph,  Chronicle  (ed.  Chabot),  vol.  iii.,  p.  156. 


246  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN   CHURCHES 

be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the  emperor  did  write  some 
such  letter,  appealing  for  aid  in  his  desperate  need.  "  From 
Jerusalem,"  he  says,  "to  the  ^gean,  the  Turkish  hordes 
have  mastered  all ;  their  galleys,  sweeping  the  Black  Sea 
and  the  Mediterranean,  threaten  the  imperial  city  itself, 
which,  if  fall  it  must,  had  better  fall  into  the  hands  of 
Latins  than  of  pagans."  ^ 

Here  then  was  a  new  motive  for  the  Crusades  unexpect- 
edly sprung  u])on  the  Western  world.  Had  Constantinople 
fallen  into  tlie  hands  of  the  Turks  nearly  four  centuries 
earlier  than  the  actual  time  of  that  fate,  and  this  when  the 
Asiatic  invaders  were  flushed  with  their  recent  victories  in 
Asia  Minor,  and  before  the  kingdoms  of  Europe  had  become 
consolidated  and  strengthened  as  great  national  powers,  it 
is  difficult  to  see  what  could  have  prevented  the  westward 
rush  of  the  devastating  flood  from  sweeping  over  all 
Christendom,  and  reducing  Italy  and  France  to  the  con- 
dition of  Syria  and  Anatolia.  From  this  threatened  doom 
of  Christianity  and  civilisation  the  world  was  saved  by  the 
earlier  Crusades.  That,  and  not  the  sentimental  glory  of 
the  recovery  of  the  sacred  sites,  or  the  pitiable  achievement 
of  the  temporary  establishment  of  the  little,  shadowy 
kingdom  of  Jerusalem,  is  their  supreme,  their  one  solid 
result.  Yet,  stupendous  as  this  task  was  and  momentous 
as  its  consequences  were,  the  thought  of  it  was  by  no 
means  uppermost  in  the  minds  of  the  Crusaders.  They 
were  jealous  of  the  Greeks,  as  uneducated  people  commonly 
are  jealous  of  their  more  cultivated  neighbours,  especially 
when  the  latter  display  the  airs  of  superior  persons,  as  the 
Greeks  were  only  too  ready  to  do.  Besides,  were  not 
these  Byzantine  heretics  excommunicated  and  cursed  by 
the  holy  pope?  The  behaviour  of  the  Crusaders  at 
Constantinople  and  other  Eastern  cities  was  scarcely  that 
of  a  lifeboat  crew  saving  the  victims  of  a  shipwreck ;  nor 
did  the  people  they  rescued  evince  much  gratitude  towards 
their  deliverers.     The  character  and  conduct  of  many  of 

»  Martene,   Thtsaur.  p.  266  ff.     Cf.  for  the  Abbott  GuUbert's  account  of 
this  celebrated  letter,  ' '  Lappenberg  "  in  Pertz.  Archiv.  vi.  p.  630. 


THE    CRUSADES  247 

the  Crusaders  rendered  them  perfectly  odious  to  the 
meu  and  women  on  whom  they  were  billeted.  The 
whole  matter  is  very  complicated.  Still,  when  we 
consider  the  course  of  events,  we  must  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  for  history  the  supreme  significance  of 
the  Crusades  lies  in  the  fact  that  they  put  a  check  on 
the  Turkish  advance,  and  so  effectually  broke  its  power 
that  the  fatal  consequences  momentarily  threatened  were 
for  ever  prevented.  He  who  believes  that  God  is  in 
history  will  see  the  fanaticism  of  relic  worship  over- 
ruled for  the  deliverance  of  Christendom  from  total 
destruction. 

While  the  appeal  of  Alexius  and  the  thundercloud  in 
the  East  to  which  it  pointed  may  have  furnished  the 
motives  of  statesmen,  it  was  the  maltreatment  of  holy 
pilgrims  and  the  desecration  of  holy  sites  that  roused  the 
passion  of  the  multitude.  In  this  age  of  relic  worship  it 
was  intolerable  that  infidels  should  hold  the  most  sacred 
of  all  relics — the  cave  in  which  the  Saviour  was  born,  the 
Cross  on  which  He  had  died,  and  the  tomb  in  which  He 
was  buried.  A  practical  age  will  smile  at  the  fanaticism 
of  such  a  thought  rousing  Europe  to  a  war  fever.  But  it 
has  been  justly  observed  that  we  have  here  a  rare  instance 
of  warfare  waged  for  an  idea.  For  this  reason  we  may 
perceive  in  the  inception  of  the  Crusades  the  poetry  of 
chivalry,  as  we  see  in  the  legends  that  followed  them  its 
romance ;  unhappily,  when  we  come  to  study  the  grim 
story  of  the  actual  events,  poetry  and  romance  vanish  in 
horrors  of  carnage. 

The  popes  have  the  credit  of  originating  the  Crusades 
and  of  being  their  chief  promoters.  The  earliest  effort  of 
the  kind  has  been  sought  in  a  letter  ascribed  to  Pope 
Sylvester  ii.,  about  the  year  1000,  in  the  midst  of  the 
crisis  of  gloom  and  terror  when  people  were  expecting 
the  end  of  the  world.  This  letter  is  addressed  to  all 
Christians  in  the  name  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem, 
beseeching  them  to  pity  the  miseries  of  the  Holy  City  and 
come  to  its  rescue  with  money  if  not  with  arms-;  but  its 


248  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

^reiunncness  canuot  be  sustained.^  Gregory  Vll.,  the  great 
Hildcbrand  (a.d.  1073-1085),  seriously  purposed  inaugu- 
rating a  crusade,  and  was  only  hindered  from  doing  so,  after 
50,000  pilgrims  had  agreed  to  follow  him,  by  the  comphca- 
tion  of  affairs  in  Europe  that  demanded  his  attention.  He 
said,  "  He  would  rather  expose  his  life  to  deliver  the  holy 
places  than  live  to  command  the  entire  universe."  Had 
this  remarkable  man  devoted  his  genius  and  energy  to 
the  enterprise,  no  doubt  great  results  would  have  been 
achieved.  But  the  actual  origination  af  the  first  Crusade 
was  the  work  of  Urban  ii.  (a.d.  1088-1099),  who  held 
a  council  at  Piacenza,  in  which  he  broached  the  scheme, 
and  then,  crossing  the  Alps,  convened  a  larger  and  more  re- 
presentative council  at  Clermont  (November  1095),  where, 
after  the  settlement  of  French  affairs,  he  called  upon  the 
people  of  Europe  to  aid  him  in  rescuing  the  Holy  Sepulchre. 
The  popular  imagination  has  seized  on  Peter  the  Hermit, 
who  came  from  Amiens,  as  the  real  inspirer  of  the  Crusades, 
and  Michaud  has  written  a  dramatic  description  of  the 
interview  between  this  strange  person  and  Urban  at 
Clermont,  in  which  the  pope  takes  quite  the  second  place ; 
but  that  conversation  is  wholly  imaginary.  Peter  was  not 
even  present  at  the  council.  The  organisation  and  spread 
of  the  movement  through  Europe  must  be  attributed  to 
the  pope.  On  the  other  hand,  we  should  beware  of  the 
modern  tendency  to  undervalue  Peter's  influence.  An 
enthusiast  of  intense  fervour,  he  set  all  the  northern  parts 
of  France  on  fire  with  his  passionate  eloquence  as  he  rode 
about  from  town  to  town,  bareheaded  and  barefooted, 
carrying  a  huge  cross  before  him,  and  preaching  in  churches 
and  streets  and  highways.  Everywhere  his  proposal  was 
entertained  with  enthusiasm  as  from  the  call  of  heaven. 
Deiis  vult,  Deus  vult,  cried  the  educated  ecclesiastics  in 
the  council ;  Lieu  la  volt,  Dieu  la  volt,  echoed  the  rustics 
in  their  vernacular.  The  council  freed  the  Crusaders  from 
taxes,  and  ordered  that  debtors  who  joined  their  ranks 
should  not  be  pursued.  An  extraordinary  assortment  of 
^  Ep.  cvii.  in  Bouquet,  x.  426. 


THE   CRUSADES  249 

people  rushed  into  the  enterprise,  including  old  men, 
women  with  children,  prostitutes. 

Peter  and  his  horde  of  peasants  were  too  impatient  to 
wait  for  the  lords  and  knights  who  were  coming  together 
in  military  array.  Without  any  organisation  or  commis- 
sariat the  simple  multitude  set  out  for  their  tremendous 
walk  in  the  spring  of  the  year  1096.  After  they  had 
crossed  Austria  and  passed  the  confines  of  civilisation,  they 
still  had  600  miles  of  forest  and  wilderness  to  traverse 
in  Hungary  and  Bulgaria  before  they  could  reach  Con- 
stantinople. They  came  on  like  a  swarm  of  locusts  eating 
up  the  countries  they  passed  through.  We  can  neither 
blame  them  nor  the  people  of  these  lauds  when  we  see 
that  raids  of  hunger  provoked  retaliation  and  slaughter. 
The  multitude  was  divided  into  two  parts  for  better 
provisioning — half  under  Peter,  and  half  under  another 
leader,  Walter  the  Penniless.  They  were  in  a  pitiable 
plight  when  they  reached  Thrace,  and  all  might  have 
perished  if  the  Emperor  Alexius  had  not  sent  to  rescue 
them. 

We  can  understand  with  what  disgust  the  citizens  of 
Constantinople  viewed  the  approach  of  the  ragged  host. 
Alexius  was  glad  to  ship  them  across  the  Bosphorus 
as  quickly  as  possible.  There  they  would  have  been 
killed  outright,  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  dissentions 
that  had  broken  out  among  the  Turks.  But  even  as 
things  were,  a  great  number — Gibbon  accepts  the  figure 
at  "  three  hundred  thousand  " — perished  before  a  single 
city  was  rescued  from  the  infidels. 

In  August  a  more  regular  army  followed,  under  Hugh 
the  Great,  Count  of  Vermandois  ;  Bobert  of  Normandy,  the 
eldest  son  of  William  the  Conqueror ;  Stephen  of  Chartres, 
said  to  own  as  many  castles  as  there  are  days  of  the  year ; 
Eaymond  of  many  titles ;  Bohemond,  son  of  Eobert 
Guiscard ;  Tancred,  the  perfect  knight  of  chivalry  cele- 
brated in  Tasso's  poem ;  but,  above  all,  Godfrey  of  Bouillon, 
Duke  of  Lorraine,  a  man  who  combined  a  spirit  of  genuine, 
unselfish    religious  devotion    with    the  talents  of  a  great 


250  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

general.  Even  this  army  was  ill-organised  under  its 
several  leaders,  and  the  undisciplined  footmen  immensely 
outnumbered  the  knights  on  horseback.  Like  the  ragged 
regiments  of  their  precursors,  these  troops  also  came 
through  Germany  and  Hungary,  and  were  admitted  into 
Constantinople  with  fear  and  suspicion.  Crossing  the 
Hellespont,  they  defeated  the  Turks  at  Nicaea.  Then  they 
divided.  One  body  struck  off  east  under  Baldwin  and 
conquered  Edessa.  The  main  army  proceeded  to  Antioch, 
which  fell  after  a  fearful  siege,  both  sides  having  suffered 
very  heavily.^  At  length  Jerusalem  was  surrounded,  be- 
sieged, and  taken  (July  15,  109 9).^  Then,  with  lighted 
torches,  but  still  among  scenes  of  blood,  the  Crusaders  made 
their  way  to  the  goal  of  their  difficult  undertaking — the 
Holy  Sepulchre.  Part  of  the  supposed  cross,  still  contained 
in  its  silver  casket,  was  recovered  and  borne  with  singing 
in  procession  to  "  the  temple."  "  And  all  the  people  went 
after,  which  wept  for  pitie,  as  much  as  if  they  had  seen  the 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ  still  hanging  on  the  Cross.  They  all 
held  them  for  much  recompense  of  a  great  treasure  that 
our  Lord  had  thus  discovered."  ^ 

Godfrey  of  Bouillon  was  elected  king  of  Jerusalem ; 
and,  though  he  declined  the  honour  of  the  title  as  unworthy 
to  hold  it,  he  accepted  the  actual  rule.*  Godfrey  died  the 
next  year,  and  his  brother  Baldwin,  when  summoned  from 
Edessa  to  succeed  him,  being  less  scrupulous,  allowed 
himself  to  be  crowned  at  Bethlehem  (a.d.  1100).  Thus 
there  was  founded  the  Latin  kingdom  of  Jerusalem. 

The  sequel  is  an  anti-climax.  Having  accomplished  the 
end  of  their  vow,  the  mass  of  the  surviving  Crusaders  re- 
turned home,  and  the  leaders  who  remained  in  charge  of  the 
chief  cities  that  had  been  captured — Jerusalem,  Antioch,  and 
Edessa — found  to  their  dismay  that  they  were  left  stranded, 
like  shipwrecked  sailors  on  three  desert  islands.  Both 
politically  and  ecclesiastically  their  position  was  altogether 
anomalous.      They  had  formally  submitted  to  the  Greek 

1  See  William  of  Tyre,  pp.  84-143. 

2  Ibid.  pp.  167-188.  3  fiid^  p,  i94_  4  ^jj^   pp_  192^  193. 


THE    CRUSADES  251 

emperor  as  the  condition  of  being  permitted  to  pass 
through  his  territory ;  but  in  reality  they  showed  him  no 
fealty  whatever,  but  behaved  as  foreign  princes  colonising 
a  land  that  they  had  won  by  the  sword.  This  was  the 
political  position.  The  ecclesiastical  was  not  more  satis- 
factory. They  were  now  in  the  region  of  the  Eastern 
Church ;  yet  they  owned  allegiance  to  the  pope,  whose 
supremacy  that  Church  did  not  recognise  and  who  had 
denounced  it  as  heretical.  In  the  eyes  of  the  patriarch 
of  Constantinople  the  Crusaders  were  both  schismatics  and 
heretics.  Their  subsequent  conduct  did  not  lead  the  Greek 
Church  to  view  them  with  favour ;  for  they  abandoned 
themselves  to  the  pleasures  and  luxuries  of  Oriental  life.  A 
Latin  patriarchate  was  founded  at  Jerusalem,  with  Dagobert, 
a  haughty,  ambitious  prelate,  as  its  first  occupant,  having  four 
archbishoprics  and  a  number  of  bishoprics  under  him. 

The  kingdom  of  Jerusalem  last.ed  for  nearly  a  century ; 
but  during  much  of  this  time  it  was  in  a  state  of  degenera- 
tion and  decay.  The  descendants  of  the  Crusaders,  called 
Pulleni,  were  for  the  most  part  a  weak  and  worthless  race, 
rendered  effete  by  luxury  and  self-indulgence.  Damascus 
was  still  unconquered.  In  the  year  1146  Edessa  was 
recaptured  by  the  Saracens.  Then  Europe  was  alarmed, 
and  a  second  Crusade  was  projected  and  inspired  by  a 
much  greater  man  than  any  of  the  originators  of  the  first 
— Bernard  of  Clairvaux,  the  reformer  of  monasticism  and 
restorer  of  the  papacy  to  its  power  and  dignity.  The 
earlier  Crusade  had  not  seen  any  sovereign  at  its  head. 
But  this  new  movement  was  led  by  both  Louis  vii.,  king  of 
France,  and  the  German  emperor,  Conrad  in.  It  proved 
to  be  a  dismal  failure.  The  Greeks  were  now  more 
than  timorous  and  suspicious:  they  actually  opposed  the 
defenders  of  Christendom.  There  is  good  reason  to  believe 
that  the  Emperor  Manuel,  a  warrior  of  gigantic  personal 
prowess,  entered  into  secret  communications  with  the 
sultan  and  treacherously  misled  the  Crusaders.  Be  that 
as  it  may,  the  siege  of  Damascus  failed,  and  the  princes 
returned  home  having  effected  nothing. 


252  THE    UUEKK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Nevertheless  for  two  ceuturies  the  idea  of  the  Crusades 
was  kept  alive  in  Europe,  and  every  spring  saw  fresli 
bodies  of  men  sewing  the  cross  in  gold,  or  silk,  or  cloth 
on  to  their  garments,  and  setting  out  for  the  holy  war.  It 
was  a  great  calamity  that  originated  the  next  extensive 
movement  of  this  kind — known  as  the  third  Crusade.  In 
October  1187,  Jerusalem  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Sultan 
Saladin.  This  roused  the  old  Emperor  Frederick  Barba- 
rossa  to  go  himself  to  recover  the  Holy  City.  He  defeated 
the  sultan  at  Iconium,  but  was  drowned  in  attemptmg  to 
ford  the  river  Calycadnus  (a.d.  1190).  Bichard  i.  of  Eng- 
land now  became  the  chief  leader  of  the  Crusade,  amid 
great  difficulties  caused  by  the  jealousies  of  other  princes 
and  his  own  inconsiderate  eagerness,  for  he  was  but  a 
glorified  schoolboy.  Eichard  and  Saladin  —  who  was 
neither  a  Turk  nor  an  Arab,  but  a  Kurd,  and  therefore, 
like  the  Crusaders  themselves,  of  the  Aryan  stock — came 
to  terms,  which  left  Jerusalem  in  the  hands  of  the  courteous 
Moslem,  but  allowed  the  Christians  possession  of  the  Holy 
Sepulchre  and  the  right  of  pilgrimage  there. 

The  story  of  the  fourth  Crusade  might  well  be  told 
with  tears  of  shame  and  humiliation  for  the  disgrace  which 
it  was  to  Christendom.  In  the  year  1217  Innocent  m. 
summoned  the  nations  to  yet  another  attempt  to  rescue 
the  holy  sites  from  the  possession  of  the  infidel.  No 
emperor  or  king  now  responded.  There  was  no  great 
Bernard  to  inspire  enthusiasm.  But  a  preacher  of  a  dis- 
tinctly lower  type,  Fulco  of  Neuilly,  succeeded  in  obtaining 
support  from  a  number  of  French  nobles,  who  involved 
themselves  in  unworthy  obligations  to  blind  Daudolo,  the 
patriotic  doge  of  Venice.  He  would  supply  them  with 
ships  if  they  would  do  his  business  for  him.  Venice  was 
now  quarrelling  with  Constantinople,  and  the  Crusaders 
consented  to  begin  their  expedition  with  an  attack  on  their 
fellow-Christians,  the  Greeks.  They  first  took  Zaras  and 
then  sailed  up  to  the  very  walls  of  Constantinople,  gazing 
with  wonder  on  the  gilt  domes  and  spires  of  its  500 
churches.     The  Crusaders — we  should  say,  the  invaders — 


THE    CRUSADES  253 

were  accompanied  by  youDg  Alexius,  son  of  the  Emperor 
Isaac,  who  had  been  blinded  and  imprisoned  by  bis  brother 
Alexius  Angelus,  now  usurping  the  throne.  Thus  their 
expedition  might  be  compared  to  the  French  aid  offered  to 
the  Pretender  in  England.  But  while  this  gave  some  face 
to  the  invasion,  the  sequel  showed  that  it  was  really  an 
outbreak  of  the  long  smouldering  enmity  between  the  East 
and  the  West. 

At  the  approach  of  the  Latins  the  timid  Greek  troops 
and  their  emperor  fled  from  the  camp  where  they  had 
assembled  with  a  view  of  opposing  the  Crusaders.  After 
an  easy  siege  the  gates  were  thrown  open,  and  the  Latins 
entered  the  city  in  triumph.  They  so  far  carried  out  their 
programme  as  to  release  the  imprisoned  ex -Emperor  Isaac 
and  crown  the  young  Alexius,  together  with  his  father,  at 
St.  Sophia.  The  junior  emperor  had  promised  that  when 
his  father  and  he  were  restored  he  would  put  an  end  to 
the  schism  which  separated  the  Greeks  from  the  Latin 
Church.  Isaac  was  obliged  to  consent  to  this  and  other 
humiliating  conditions — namely,  a  money  payment  of 
200,000  silver  marks,  and  the  rescue  of  the  Holy  Land. 
But  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  fulfilling  his  promises 
were  very  great.  A  considerable  sum  of  money  was 
paid  over  at  once  to  the  Crusaders  ;  but  no  serious  steps 
were  taken  to  unite  the  divided  churches.  Before  long 
the  Latin  visitors  became  very  unpopular.  They  were 
pressing  their  demands  with  imperious  insolence,  forcing 
their  way  into  the  palace,  and  threatening  the  timorous 
Alexius  that  they  would  no  longer  recognise  his  sove- 
reignty if  he  did  not  comply.  But  that  was  beyond 
his  power.  When  the  people  perceived  his  helplessness, 
they  besieged  the  Senate  clamoming  for  another  emperor. 
A  time  of  confusion  followed,  in  which  young  Alexius 
was  strangled,  and  his  father,  blind  Isaac,  died  of  fright. 
The  Latins  then  took  Constantinople  by  storm  under  the 
Marquis  of  Montferrat.  The  city  was  sacked.  Many 
of  its  priceless  treasures  were  carried  off  to  Europe ; 
more  were  destroyed.     The  patriarch  tied  on  an  ass  without 


254  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

a  single  attendant.  The  sacred  vessels  in  the  churches 
were  turned  into  drinking  cups.  Icons,  even  portraits  of 
Christ,  were  used  as  gaming  tables.  At  St.  Sophia  the 
splendid  altar  was  broken  in  pieces,  and  a  harlot,  whom 
Nicetas  calls  "  a  minion  of  the  furies,"  seated  herself  on 
the  patriarch's  throne,  and  sang  and  danced  in  the  church, 
ridiculing  the  Greek  hymns  and  processions.  It  was  a 
scene  of  outrage  and  profanity  anticipating  Paris  at  the 
Eevolution.^ 

A  Latin  Empire  was  now  set  up  at  Constantinople  with 
Baldwin  of  Flanders  as  its  first  emperor  (a.d.  1204).  The 
Pope  Innocent  ill.  at  first  expressed  strong  disapproval  of 
the  perversion  of  a  Crusade  against  the  infidels  into  a  war 
of  conquest  fought  with  Christians.  But  these  Greek 
Christians  were  heretics  and  schismatics,  and  when  he 
saw  the  great  city  of  Constantinople  brought  under 
Latin  authority  he  sent  the  pallium  to  the  new  patriarch, 
Thomas  Morosini,  a  Venetian,  and  boasted  that  at  last 
Israel,  after  destroying  the  calves  at  Dan  and  Bethel,  was 
again  united  to  Judah.  Of  course  this  was  no  real  end  to 
the  separation  of  the  two  churches.  Among  the  Greeks 
the  Latin  patriarch  was  regarded  as  an  intruder  ;  he  was 
only  recognised  by  the  dominant  invaders  from  Europe.  The 
rule  of  the  Franks  at  Constantinople  lasted  for  about  sixty 
years ;  but  it  was  no  credit  to  its  unscrupulous  founders. 
At  length,  with  the  aid  of  the  Genoese,  Michael  viil. 
(Palccologus)  expelled  them  and  restored  the  Greek  Empire 
(A.r).  1261). 

Meanwhile  the  Crusades  went  on  as  an  intermittent 
stream  of  warriors  pouring  over  from  Europe  into  Egypt 
and  Syria.  In  the  year  1228  the  German  emperor, 
Frederic  II.,  driven  to  make  good  his  word  by  threats  of 
excommunication  from  Pope  Gregory  ix.,  after  much  pro- 
crastination, set  off  for  the  Holy  Land,  where  by  good 
fortune  he  found  that  the  Sultan  Camel  of  Egypt  was 
engaged  in  war  with  his  nephew,  and  therefore  willing  to 
make  terms    with  the  Franks.       This    Mussulman    ruler 

1  Nicetas,  p.  757  flF. 


THE   CRUSADES  255 

granted  them  a  considerable  part  of  the  Holy  Land, 
including  Jerusalem.  Frederic  claimed  the  kingdom  through 
lolanthe,  whom  he  had  recently  married,  and  placed  the 
crown  on  his  own  head  in  the  church  of  the  Holy 
Sepulchre.  But  his  troubles  with  the  pope  compelled  him 
CO  return  home  the  next  year. 

The  last  Crusade  of  importance  was  undertaken  by 
Louis  IX.  of  France,  a  man  of  deep  personal  piety,  who 
deservedly  earned  the  name  of  Saint  Louis.  Jerusalem 
had  been  conquered  and  the  inhabitants  most  horribly 
treated  by  a  rude  tribe  from  the  steppes  of  Asia,  the 
Chowaresmians,  who,  having  fled  before  the  Mongols,  were 
lured  by  the  Egyptian  Sultan  Ayoub  to  serve  as  his  mer- 
cenaries. The  Christian  dominion  was  now  restricted  to 
Acre.  Louis  landed  in  Egypt  in  a.d.  1249,  suffered  defeat, 
and  was  taken  prisoner.  Eansomed  at  a  great  price,  he 
sailed  for  Acre  the  next  year ;  but  he  could  do  little,  and 
he  was  compelled  to  return  home  in  the  year  1254.  A 
later  attempt  by  St.  Louis  to  break  the  Mohammedan 
power  at  Tunis  proved  also  to  be  a  failure.  Acre  fell  in  the 
year  1291,  and  with  its  fall  the  last  remnant  of  the  Latin 
power  in  the  East  vanished.  Henceforth  all  Palestine 
remained  under  the  rule  of  Islam. 


CHAPTER  VTII 

THE  GREEK  CHURCH  AT  THE  FALL  OF  THE 
BYZANTINE  EMPIRE 

(a)  Anna    Comnena,   Alexias  ;    Nicetas,   Historia,   de   Rebus  post 

C.  P.  etc.  ;  Pachymer ;  Nicephoras  Gregoras ;  Ducas  ;  Chal- 
condyles ;  Pliranza ;  and  new  sources  later  tlian  Gibbon, 
especially  Nicolo  Barbaro,  Giornale  deW  Assedio  di  Constan- 
tinopoli — the  diary  of  a  besieged  resident ;  and  Critobulus, 
Life  of  Mahomet  {^los  rov  MmafieS  /3'). 

(b)  Gibbon,    chaps.    Ixi.-lxviii.  ;     Bury,   Later    Roman    Empire ; 

Oman,  Byzantine  Empire ;  Pears,  Destruction  of  the  Greek 
Empire,  1903  ;  Revue  de  VOrient  Ch/rdien,  P«  Annee,  1896, 
No.  3, 1. 

The  decay  of  the  Byzantine  Empire  involved  the  orthodox 
Church  in  two  serious  calamities.  The  Turkish  victories 
brought  disaster  to  those  Christians  who  looked  on  Constanti- 
nople as  the  metropolis  of  their  religion,  over  and  above 
the  ruin  of  the  State  of  which  the  same  city  was  the  capital 
and  at  times  almost  the  whole  territory.  That  was  bad 
enough.  But  the  mischief  was  aggravated  by  the  schism 
which  divided  the  Eastern  Church  from  the  papal  Church 
of  the  West.  As  we  saw  in  the  previous  chapter,  under 
these  circumstances  the  advent  of  the  Crusaders,  who  came 
as  the  rescuers  of  the  East  from  the  infidel,  was  regarded 
with  very  mixed  feelings  by  the  Christians  on  the  spot. 
The  Greeks  hated  the  Latins  at  least  as  much  as  they 
feared  the  Turks.  At  times  we  find  the  emperor  plotting 
with  the  sultan  against  his  friends  from  the  West.  The 
conduct  of  the  invading  hosts  intensified  this  antipathy. 

The  chronicles  make  it  clear  that  this  must  have  been 
the  ease  even  before  there  was  any  outbreak  of  hostility 

266 


GREEK  CHURCH  AT  FALL  OF  BYZANTINE  EMPIRE       257 

between  the  two  parties.  Take,  for  instance,  some  of  the 
occurrences  in  Syria  and  Palestine  (hiring  the  first  Crusade. 
After  achieving  their  stupendous  task,  a  task  worthy  of  a 
greater  epic  than  Tasso's  Jerusalem  Delivered,  in  the  success- 
ful siege  of  Antioch,  the  Crusaders  proceeded  to  resume 
Christian  worship  in  the  city.  In  the  churches  they  found 
icons  with  the  eyes  cut  out,  the  noses  scraped  off,  the 
whole  smeared  with  filth.  These  they  restored,  putting 
the  fabrics  in  good  order.  They  settled  salaries  on  the 
clergy  and  lavished  on  the  churches  gifts  of  gold  and  silver 
for  crosses  and  chalices,  and  silk  for  vestments  and  altar 
cloths.  They  re-established  the  patriarch  John  with  much 
honour  and  solemnity.  They  even  set  up  bishops  in  cities 
that  hitherto  had  not  possessed  them.  So  friendly  was 
their  attitude  that  when  they  left  Antioch  and  were  on 
their  way  to  Jerusalem  the  Syrian  Christians  volunteered 
as  guides.  All  this  was  very  pleasant.  But  the  schism ! — 
what  had  become  of  the  schism  ?  That  was  in  no  way 
healed.  Personal  convenience  on  one  side,  and  some  sense 
of  gratitude,  not  to  say  common  decency,  on  the  other, 
kept  it  in  abeyance  for  the  time  being ;  but  its  re-emergence 
was  inevitable,  sooner  or  later.  John  of  Antioch  was  in  a  very 
awkward  position.  He  could  not  object  to  being  restored 
to  his  rightful  place,  the  patriarchal  throne  of  Antioch ; 
and  he  could  not  be  otherwise  than  courteous  to  the 
deliverers  from  the  West,  through  whose  heroic  valour  and 
almost  incredible  toil  this  happy  result  had  been  brought 
about.  Yet  how  could  he  fraternise  with  heretics — men 
who  affirmed  the  double  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
asserted  the  supremacy  of  the  bishop  of  Eome,  and  worst 
of  all,  used  unleavened  bread  at  the  communion  ?  It  was 
impossible.  In  this  dilemma  John  chose  the  prudent  if  in- 
glorious course  of  retreating.  He  went  to  Constantinople 
"  of  his  good  will,"  our  chronicler  is  careful  to  say, 
"  without  any  force  or  constraint."  ^  The  post  being  thus 
vacated,  the  Crusaders  felt  no  scruple  in  appointing  another 
patriarch,  and  accordingly  they  chose  Bernard,  whom  they 

1  William  of  Tyre,  c.  144. 
17 


258  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

had  previously  made  bishop  of  Tarsus ;  he  was  a  native  of 
Valence  who  had  come  from  the  West  as  chaplain  to  the 
bishop  of  Puy.  Of  course  he  was  a  priest  of  the  Latin 
Church  and  subject  to  the  pope.  It  was  the  same  with 
Dagobert  whom  the  Crusaders  had  made  patriarch  of  Jeru- 
salem. He  was  their  patriarch ;  he  was  no  patriarch  of  the 
indigenous  Christians. 

The  situation  at  Constantinople  was  infinitely  worse. 
It  was  a  Christian  city  in  the  hands  of  -a  Christian 
government  when  the  Crusaders  captured  it.  Therefore 
it  had  its  patriarch  at  the  time.  This  man  was  John 
Camaterus.^  He  fled  to  Didymotichum,  but  although  he 
was  no  longer  treated  as  the  head  of  the  Church,  there  was 
no  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  Greeks  to  acknowledge 
the  Latin  usurper  of  his  throne  at  St.  Sophia.  Two  years 
later  (a.d.  1205)  Michael  Antorianus  was  elected  to  the 
patriarchate  by  the  Greeks  of  Nica^a  with  as  much  cere- 
mony as  if  it  had  been  at  St.  Sophia ;  and  so  the  Greek 
Church  went  on  in  its  independence  notwithstanding  the 
boasted  union  of  East  and  West  at  Constantinople,  for  which 
Pope  Innocent  was  grateful. 

When  we  plant  ourself  in  imagination  among  the 
Greeks,  we  see  how  ridiculous  the  very  idea  of  a  Latin 
Empire  at  Constantinople  must  have  seemed  to  them. 
There  never  was  any  Latin  Empire  in  the  East.  A  huge 
band  of  brigands  had  seized  the  city ;  that  was  about  all 
that  had  been  done.  Theoretically  the  barons  divided  out 
the  territory  of  the  Byzantine  Empire.  But  they  did  not 
even  know  what  that  territory  was,  for  in  their  distribution 
they  included  Assyria  and  Egypt  and  other  parts  of  the 
Turkish  dominions.  Meanwhile  they  were  actually  only  in 
possession  of  Constantinople  and  its  immediate  neighbom-- 
hood.  Even  here  the  "  emperor  "  was  little  more  than  one  of 
the  barons  who  found  it  hard  to  maintain  his  authority  over 
his  turbulent  fellow  barons — like  his  contemporary  King 
John  in  England.  After  reigning  only  one  year  the  first 
"  emperor "  Baldwin  was  lost  and  probably  killed  among 

'  Le  Quieu,  Oriens  Christiaiius,  vol.  i.  p.  276. 


GREEK  CHURCH  AT  FALL  OF  BYZANTINE  EMPIRE   259 

the  Bulgarians.  His  brother  Henry,  who  succeeded  him 
and  reigned  for  ten  years,  stayed  the  persecution  of  the 
Greeks  and  permitted  them  to  practise  their  religious  rites 
at  Constantinople.  Here  was  a  gleam  of  hope  for  a  settle- 
ment ;  but  it  vanished  with  the  death  of  the  liberal-minded 
"  emperor."  Peter,  who  followed,  had  only  reigned  for  two 
years  when  he  was  lost  among  the  mountains  of  Epirus, 
and  nothing  more  was  ever  heard  of  him.  Things  went 
from  bad  to  worse  with  the  usurpation  ;  a  blight  had  seized 
it  from  the  first ;  the  doom  of  heaven  was  over  it.  The 
people  fled  from  its  hard  taxation  ;  fields  were  left  untilled ; 
trade  died  down  ;  abject  poverty  was  the  fate  of  the  city  and 
its  rulers.  The  barons  tore  the  copper  off  the  domes  of  the 
churches  in  order  to  coin  money.  They  sold  the  most 
sacred  relics,  chief  among  which  was  the  crown  of  thorns, 
which  went  to  St.  Louis  of  France.  The  last  "  emperor  " 
even  pawned  his  own  brother  to  some  Venetian  nobles  as  a 
pledge  for  a  loan.  This  pitiable  pretender  to  the  throne  of 
the  Csesars  spent  most  of  his  time  in  Europe,  travelling 
from  court  to  court  and  begging  aid  in  money  and  men 
to  defend  his  city. 

Meanwhile  the  real  empire  was  partially  pulling  itself 
together  again.  When  the  Crusaders  took  Constantinople 
they  seized  the  head.  The  limbs  then  broke  off  and 
organised  themselves  as  three  separate  governments  at 
Trebizond,  at  Thessalonica,  and  at  Nicsea.  The  latter  was 
the  chief  centre,  and  by  degrees  it  extended  its  power  and 
territory,  till  at  last  most  of  the  Byzantine  Empire  as  this 
had  existed  when  Constantinople  fell  had  been  gathered 
under  its  rule.  At  the  same  time  the  Greek  Church  in 
the  provinces  went  on  in  its  accustomed  way  as  though 
there  were  no  Latin  Empire  at  Constantinople,  no  Latin 
patriarch,  no  union  with  the  West,  no  submission  to  the 
papacy.  These  things  were  confined  to  the  brigands  who 
occupied  the  city ;  and  those  brigands,  as  we  have  seen, 
were  being  literally  starved  out. 

Such  was  the  condition  of  affairs  when  in  the  year 
1261    some   Greeks   in   the  army  of   Michael   Palseologus 


260  THK   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

crept  through  a  hole  in  the  walls  of  the  once  impregnable 
city  and  quietly  recovered  Constantinople  for  its  own 
people.  But  disappointment  followed.  The  hopes  kindled 
at  Nicsea  were  not  realised.  It  was  impossible  really  to 
restore  the  Byzantine  Empire.  The  so-called  Crusaders — 
of  the  fourth  Crusade — had  done  little  good  to  themselves, 
and  infinite  harm  to  the  empire.  The  wonderful  system 
of  Koman  administration  was  broken  beyond  possibility  of 
repair.  Thus  these  pretended  defenders  of  Christendom 
against  Islam  prepared  the  way  for  the  final  overthrow  of 
Christian  government  in  the  East.  If  Constantinople  had 
not  been  captured  by  Latin  Christians  in  the  thirteenth 
century,  probably  it  would  not  have  been  besieged  and  taken 
by  Ottoman  Turks  in  the  sixteenth.  At  the  door  of  these 
professed  Crusaders  lies  the  awful  guilt  of  the  ruin  of  the 
city  and  the  opening  of  the  road  for  the  advent  of  a  Turkish 
Empire  in  Europe  and  all  its  attendant  miseries. 

The  newly  restored  Greek  government  under  Michael 
at  Constantinople  found  itself  opposed  by  two  enemies — 
the  Latin  power  in  the  West,  coldly  sympathetic  with  the 
exiled  Baldwin,  but  more  effectually  energetic  in  response 
to  the  demands  of  the  popes,  and  the  Turkish  power,  grow- 
ing and  spreading  like  a  fungus  till  it  reached  the  very 
gates  of  the  city.  Thus  once  again  the  Byzantine  Empire 
shrank  to  the  limits  of  the  walls  of  Constantinople. 

It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the  Church  did  not  decay 
with  the  empire.  We  have  often  had  occasion  to  contrast 
the  subserviency  of  the  Greek  clergy  with  the  independence 
of  the  papacy.  But  we  have  met  with  many  exceptions, 
and  these  are  all  the  more  remarkable  from  the  fact  that 
the  patriarch  of  Constantinople  never  had  the  position  held 
by  the  pope  at  Eome.  If  he  resisted  the  government  it 
was  at  his  peril,  for  he  was  only  a  subject  living  under  the 
shadow  of  the  imperial  palace — not  an  independent  prince, 
sometimes  the  most  powerful  personage  in  Europe,  able  to 
play  one  kingdom  off  against  another,  as  was  the  case  with 
the  great  Innocent  Hi.  and  his  able  successors. 

Michael  Palaeologus  stained  his  succession  to  the  throne 


GREEK  CHURCH  AT  FALL  OF  BYZANTINE  EMPIRE   261 

of  Constantinople  with  an  abominable  crime.  He  was  the 
tutor  and  guardian  of  John,  the  heir  to  the  throne,  a  child 
only  eight  years  old.  It  was  expected  that  he  would  only 
act  as  regent,  or  at  most  as  co-emperor.  Instead  of  doing 
so,  he  seized  the  position  of  sole  emperor,  and  blinded  the 
boy  to  render  him  incapable  of  ever  taking  over  the  govern- 
ment.^ Indignant  at  the  crime,  the  patriarch  Arsenius 
summoned  a  synod  of  bishops,  in  which  he  formally  excom- 
municated the  emperor.  Attention  has  been  called  to  the 
fact  that  he  did  not  go  further  and  depose  the  criminal. 
But  here  we  may  note  an  important  difference  between  the 
Eastern  and  the  Western  Churches.  Popes  deposed  princes, 
because  popes  claimed  for  the  Church  supreme  authority 
over  the  secular  government.  That  claim  was  never  put 
forth  by  the  Greek  Church.  In  the  East  the  theory  was 
that  each  had  power  over  its  own  province,  though  in 
practice  the  secular  interfered  with  the  spiritual.  This 
spiritual  power  was  now  a  serious  reality.  Therefore 
Michael  was  thoroughly  alarmed.  He  begged  for  penance 
to  be  substituted  for  excommunication.  Arsenius  replied 
that  even  if  he  were  threatened  with  death  he  would  never 
remove  the  excommunication.  The  emperor  paid  the 
patriarch  a  visit  and  asked  if  he  desired  his  abdication,  but 
when,  as  he  was  unbuckhng  his  sword,  the  patriarch  held 
out  his  hand  as  though  to  receive  it,  Michael  drew  back 
and  did  not  complete  the  action.  He  even  spoke  among 
his  friends  about  appealing  to  the  pope.  Some  years  passed. 
Again  the  emperor  applied  to  the  patriarch  for  absolution ; 
and  again  the  stern  servant  of  the  God  of  righteousness  re- 
fused. Then  Michael  could  endure  the  strain  no  longer. 
He  brought  a  number  of  charges  against  Arsenius — that  he 
had  shortened  the  matin  prayer  for  the  emperor,  ordered 
the  omission  of  the  Trisagion,  treated  the  sultan  of  the 
Seljukian  Turks  in  a  friendly  way,  etc.,  and  on  these 
grounds  induced  an  assembly  of  bishops  to  depose  him.* 
We  have  an  account  of  the  synod's  proceedings  recorded  by 
the  clerk  of  the  court.  Arsenius  was  exiled,  and  his  succes- 
^  Pachymer,  in.  10  ;  Gregory,  iv.  4.  "  Pachymer,  iv.  6. 


262  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

8or,  Germanus,  granted  absolution  to  Michael,  who  however 
then  persuaded  him  to  retire,  probably  because  he  would 
not  publish  the  fact.  That  was  done  by  the  next  patriarch 
Joseph,  a  monk,  who  knew  how  to  act  the  courtier.  On 
the  2nd  of  February,  a.d.  1267,  there  was  a  solemn 
function  at  St.  Sophia,  prepared  for  by  a  night  spent  in 
the  church.  The  emperor  cast  himself  on  the  ground 
before  the  patriarch,  confessed  his  sin,  and  prayed  for 
pardon.  He  remained  prostrate  while  Joseph,  in  conjunction 
with  the  other  bishops,  read  the  absolution,  after  which  he  was 
admitted  to  the  communion.  Thus  at  last  he  had  his  wish. 
The  whole  story  reveals  surprising  power  in  the  Greek  clergy, 
or  rather,  what  is  of  more  significance,  a  remarkable  respect 
felt  for  religion  and  righteousness.  It  is  not  to  be  com- 
pared with  Hildebrand's  haughty  conduct  with  the  Emperor 
Henry ;  it  is  more  hke  Ambrose's  treatment  of  Theodosius 
at  Milan,  when  he  refused  to  admit  the  Eoman  emperor  to 
the  church  with  the  stain  of  blood  upon  him.  It  was  a 
moral  protest,  not  an  assertion  of  ecclesiastical  arrogance. 

During  the  whole  period  of  the  restored  Byzantine 
Empire  the  chief  matter  of  diplomacy  with  the  emperors 
was  their  attempt  to  effect  a  union  between  the  Eastern 
and  Western  Churches.  This  was  purely  a  question  of 
policy.  There  was  no  lofty  quest  for  truth  when  dogma 
was  under  discussion,  and  no  yearning  of  brotherly  love 
when  the  attempt  was  to  heal  schism.  The  emperors, 
weak  in  arms  and  cramped  for  territory,  desired  in  the  first 
place  to  conciliate  the  popes ;  then  by  means  of  their 
influence  to  prevent  the  Western  powers  from  instigating 
a  new  "  Crusade  "  for  the  restoration  of  that  floating  shadow, 
"  the  Latin  Empire  of  Constantinople" ;  and  finally,  to  secui'e 
their  aid  in  resisting  the  continual  encroachments  of  the 
Turks.  As  early  as  a.d.  1262,  the  pope.  Urban  rv.,  had 
proclaimed  a  crusade  against  Michael  as  a  usurper  and  a 
schismatic,  and  also  against  his  friends  the  Genoese  who 
had  helped  him.  Urban  had  urged  St.  Louis  to  collect 
tithes  for  this  object.  Nothing  had  come  of  it,  and  a  later 
pope,  Gregory  jX.,  had  replied  to  embassies  from  Michael 


GREEK  CHURCH  AT  FALL  OF  BYZANTINE  EMPIRE   263 

that  no  time  was  so  favourable  as  the  present  for  putting 
an  end  to  the  Greek  schism.  Pachymer,  the  historian,  our 
chief  authority  for  this  period,  had  joined  the  Latin 
Church.     No  doubt  courtiers  were  ready  to  follow. 

The  popes  appear  to  have  been  entirely  ignorant  of  the 
real  condition  of  the  Greek  Church.  Throughout  these 
negotiations  and  all  that  followed  there  was  not  the  slightest 
disposition  on  the  part  of  that  body  to  make  any  conces- 
sion or  to  take  any  steps  towards  union.  The  Greeks  had 
suffered  too  much  from  the  cruel  invasion  and  tyrannical 
domination  of  the  Latins  to  have  the  least  desire  for  ecclesias- 
tical union  with  these  people.  The  efforts  towards  union  on 
the  Byzantine  side  came  wholly  from  the  government,  not 
at  all  from  the  people,  the  Church,  or  the  clergy.  Michael 
tried  his  utmost  to  persuade  the  patriarch  and  the  bishops 
to  join  in  his  negotiations.  But  he  failed  completely.  Is 
that  surprising  ?  At  this  very  time  the  Greeks  heard  that 
the  Western  powers  were  fitting  out  an  expedition  to  restore 
the  Latin  Empire.  To  them  reunion  with  the  Western 
Church  seemed  to  imply  the  restoration  of  an  odious  foreign 
tyranny.  Therefore,  when  delegates  from  the  pope  visited 
Constantinople  and  tried  to  reason  with  the  Greek  bishops 
and  persuade  them  to  accept  the  obnoxious  Filioque  clause, 
they  met  with  nothing  but  stubborn  resistance.  The 
bishops  replied  that  whatever  the  emperor's  threats  might 
be,  they  would  not  consent  to  any  alteration  in  the  ancient 
formula.  The  patriarch  put  forward  Veccus,  a  learned, 
eloquent  man,  to  represent  the  Greek  cause.  After  describing 
various  kinds  of  people  who  might  be  regarded  as  heretics, 
Veccus  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Latins  were  among 
those  "  who  are  not  called,  but  who  are  heretics." 

Still  Michael  laboured  for  union.  In  the  year  1274 
he  induced  some  of  the  bishops  to  join  him  in  sending 
delegates  to  Lyons  with  this  end  in  view.  Gregory  x. 
accepted  their  visit  as  a  sign  that  they  admitted  the 
Roman  form  of  the  creed  and  submitted  to  his  supremacy. 
After  the  professions  of  the  emperor  and  the  bishops  had 
been  read  by  their  envoys,  a  Te  JDeum  was  sung,  and  the 


264  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

union  of  the  churches  proclaimed.     The  patriarch  Joseph 
declining   to   submit,  he   was  promptly  deposed,  and    his 
orator  Veccus,  who  had  gone  over  to  the  emperor's  side,  set 
in  his  place.     Michael  had  his  reward.     The  pope  refused 
Charles  of  Angou  permission  to  attack  him.     But  when 
Martin  iv.  was  pope  he  had  sources  of  information  or  a 
keenness  of  perception  that  had  been  denied  to  Gregory. 
He   was   not   to   be   hoodwinked   by   Michael's   compliant 
professions,   made   with    the    sole   object    of    securing   his 
throne  and  empire,  but  not  representing  the  thought  and 
will  of  his  Church,     In  the  year  1281  Martin  put  an  end 
to  aH  negotiations  for  the  time  being  by  excommunicating 
Michael  and   the  Greeks  as  schismatics.     The  next  year 
the  emperor  died,  and  his  son  and  successor,  Andronicus  li., 
who  reigned  for  forty-six  years  (a.d.  1282-1328),  returned 
to  the  anti-papal  policy.     Veccus  was  forced  to  retire  to  a 
monastery  and    Joseph  was  restored  to  the   patriarchate. 
Still  being  in  danger  both  from  the  West,  no  longer  re- 
strained by  the  papacy,  and  also  from  the  Turks,  Andronicus 
accepted  the  aid  of   Spanish  mercenaries,  the  "  Catalans," 
whose    advent    was     the     beginning    of    grievous    trouble. 
Taking  an  independent  course,  these  Spaniards  were  the 
first  to  introduce  the  Turks  into  Europe  by  inviting  them 
to  an  alliance  against  an  opposing  faction  at  Constantinople. 
The   chief    ecclesiastical    event   of  this  long    reign    is 
the  curious   episode  of   the  patriarch  Athanasius  and  his 
anathemas.     Next  to  the  emperor,  the  patriarch  was  the 
most  important  personage  in  Constantinople.     It  was  there- 
fore a  serious  matter  to  have  Athanasius  revealing  himself 
as   a   stern,   implacable   ecclesiastic,   scattering   anathemas 
right   and   left.      He   became   so   unpopular   that   he   was 
deposed  and  sent  to  a  convent.     A  few  years  later,  some 
lads,  climbing  a  ladder  to  the  top  of  a  pillar  in  the  dome 
of  St.  Sophia  in  search  of  a  pigeon's  nest,  found  there  an 
earthen  pot  containing  anathemas  of   Athanasius  against 
the  emperor  and   the  rest  of  his  enemies.     The  sequel  of 
this    curious   incident  sheds   some  light  on   the    religious 
ideas  of  the  times.      Andronicus  was  terrified,  and  he  sum- 


GREEK  CHURCH  AT  FALL  OF  BYZANTINE  EMPIRE   265 

moned  a  synod  of  bishops  to  consider  his  future  prospects. 
The  synod  pronounced  that  only  the  man  who  had  written 
the  curse  could  withdraw  it.  So  the  emperor  went  on  foot, 
accompanied  by  the  bishops,  to  the  cell  of  Athanasius,  who 
was  persuaded  to  absolve  the  imperial  offender  and  resume 
his  own  position  as  patriarch. 

Being  in  desperate  straits,  the  next  emperor,  Andronicus 
in.  (a.d.  1328-1341),  reopened  negotiations  with  the 
papacy,  and  sent  a  message  to  Pope  John  xxii.  conveying 
his  desire  for  union  by  the  hands  of  some  Dominican 
missionaries  who  were  returning  from  Tartary,  The  pope 
replied  by  remitting  preachers  to  Constantinople  and  by 
promising  to  do  all  he  could  to  further  the  emperor's  pious 
wish.  On  the  death  of  Andronicus  soon  afterwards,  the 
dangerous  heritage  of  the  throne  of  Constantinople  fell  to 
his  son,  John  Palaeologus,  a  child  nine  years  of  age,  whose 
mother,  Anne  of  Savoy,  consented  to  the  appointment  of 
Cantacuzenus  as  regent;  the  next  year  (a.d.  1342)  he  was 
proclaimed  joint-emperor.  Cantacuzenus  was  a  theologi- 
cally-minded emperor,  who  composed  several  controversial 
works  of  no  weight  or  significance.  He  retired  in  the  year 
1355,  and  the  junior  emperor  John  held  the  reins  of 
government  for  the  following  thirty-six  years.  This  emperor 
signalised  the  individuality  of  his  policy  by  reopening 
negotiations  with  the  papacy,  but  they  came  to  nothing. 

The  last  and  most  important  of  all  the  serious  attempts 
to  reconcile  the  two  churches  occurred  in  the  reign  of 
John  V.  (sometimes  reckoned  John  vii.),  who  reigned  during 
the  years  1425—1448.  He  found  his  shrunken  dominion 
in  a  desperate  condition.  The  Turks,  who  were  now 
established  at  Adrianople  and  other  places  in  Europe,  and 
who  had  actually  besieged  Constantinople  three  years  before, 
though  ineffectually,  were  continually  threatening  the  very 
existence  of  the  empire.  In  the  year  1429,  following 
the  precedent  set  by  Michael  Palseologus,  John  sent  to 
Pope  Eugenius  to  reopen  negotiations  for  union  and  asking 
to  receive  an  envoy  at  Constantinople  to  arrange  matters 
between    the    two   parties.      Two  years  later  the  council 


266  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN   CHURCHES 

of  Bale  met.  Eugenius  ordered  the  council  to  go  to 
Bologna  for  the  convenience  of  the  Greeks  who  were  to 
attend  it.  This  the  majority  refused  to  do,  denying  the 
right  of  a  pope  to  remove  an  oecumenical  council,  and 
alleging  that  the  Bohemians,  the  followers  of  John  Huss, 
had  already  been  summoned  to  Bale.  No  doubt  on  their 
own  account  they  were  unwilling  to  cross  the  Alps  and 
bring  themselves  into  the  power  of  the  pope.  Eugenius 
denounced  this  council  as  a  "  synagogue  of  Satan,"  and  then 
summoned  his  own  council  at  Ferrara  ;  it  was  subsequently 
removed  to  Florence  on  account  of  the  plague.^  In 
November  1437  the  emperor  set  out  with  a  large  follow- 
ing. Joseph,  the  aged  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  though 
without  entertaining  any  hope  for  a  successful  issue,  was 
forced  to  accompany  the  party.  One  of  the  most  important 
members  of  it  was  the  famous  preacher  Sylvester  Syropulus, 
who  has  left  a  valuable  account  of  the  expedition.^  Eugenius 
received  them  courteously  and  did  his  utmost  to  smooth 
the  way  to  union.  Both  the  pope  and  the  emperor  appear 
to  have  been  actuated  by  a  true  desire  to  put  an  end  to 
the  schism. 

The  visitors  were  struck  with  the  splendour  of  Venice ; 
but  when  they  were  shown  the  treasures  of  St.  ^Mark's,  they 
thought,  as  Syropulus  says,  "  These  were  once  our  own. 
They  are  the  plunder  of  the  Hagia  Sophia  and  our  holy 
monasteries."  When  the  council  was  opened,  after  much 
delay,  which  the  Greeks  felt  to  be  very  irksome,  six 
theologians  on  each  side  were  appointed  to  formulate  the 
points  for  discussion.  It  was  not  till  they  had  removed  to 
Florence,  however,  much  against  the  wish  of  the  Greeks  at 
being  dragged  so  far  across  Italy,  that  the  serious  debates 
began. 

There  were  two  points  to  be  considered  with  regard  to 
the  Filioque  clause — (1)  the  question  of  the  truth  or  error 
of  it ;  (2)  the  right  of  the  Latins  to  add  it  to  their  creed. 

'  Following  Belamiine  and  other  Roman  Catholic  writers,  Hefele  reckons 
this  to  be  an  oecumenical  council,  Hist.  Cminc.  vol.  v..  Appendix,  p.  413. 
'  Vera  kistoria  unicnis  non  verce  inter  Grcecos  et  Latinos. 


GREEK  CHURCH  AT  FALL  OF  BYZANTINE  EMPIRE   267 

With  respect  to  the  first  point,  the  Greeks  had  several  private 
conferences  among  themselves,  by  means  of  which  they 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Latins  did  not  mean  that 
the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  from  "  two  principles," 
and  on  that  imderstanding  they  decided  that  the  language 
of  the  clause  was  not  in  conflict  with  the  Greek  doctrine 
that  the  procession  is  from  the  Father  and  through  the 
Son.  That  is  to  say,  they  did  not  change  their  own 
position  at  all ;  they  simply  admitted  that  the  Latin 
position  was  not  inconsistent  with  it.  To  this  statement 
the  council  agreed.  Surely  that  was  a  most  remarkable 
concession  on  the  part  of  the  papal  party,  and  thus  far  the 
victory  must  be  accorded  to  the  Greeks.  If  ideas  rather 
than  words  are  the  essentials,  the  Eastern  bishops  did  not 
give  up  anything.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Western 
bishops  tacitly  admitted  that  their  test  phrase  was  sus- 
ceptible of  an  interpretation  harmonious  with  the  Greek 
doctrine.  What  then  had  become  of  the  Greek  heresy, 
so  often  denounced  by  the  popes  ?  It  was  allowed  by  a 
papal  council  to  be  no  heresy. 

The  second  point  was  more  difficult.  The  emperor 
was  led  to  admit  that  the  clause  was  in  the  creed  of  the 
seventh  oecumenical  council,  the  second  council  of  Nicfea 
(a.d.  787);  but  the  bishops  knew  better.  Angry  debates 
followed.  At  length,  John,  by  the  exertion  of  all  his 
influence,  brought  his  party  round  to  allow  that  the  phrase 
FiUoque  had  been  inserted  into  the  creed  lawfully  and  for 
a  good  reason.  If  the  decision  of  the  first  point  had  been 
favourable  to  the  Greeks,  the  pendulum  had  now  swung  in 
the  opposite  direction,  and  on  the  whole  it  must  be  admitted 
that  the  Latins  had  the  advantage.  It  does  not  appear 
that  the  other  matter  of  serious  dispute — the  question  of 
papal  supremacy — was  ever  discussed  by  the  council,  at  all 
events,  publicly.  We  may  recognise  the  wisdom  of 
Eugenius  in  the  evasion  of  it,  and  also  his  sincere  desire 
for  peace  and  union.  Here,  and  indeed  all  along,  we 
see  in  these  discussions  the  peculiar  danger  of  the  re- 
conciler.      He   glides  over   the   thin    ice ;    but    the    deep 


208  THE   GREEK    AND   EASTERN    CHURCHES 

waters  lie  beneath,  and  it  will  not  be  long  before  the  ice 
breaks.  There  can  be  no  solid  union  without  a  frank 
admission  of  differences.  That  was  not  seen  at  the  time. 
It  rarely  is  seen  by  amicable  peace-makers.  In  July  1439, 
after  twenty-six  sessions  of  the  council,  the  act  of  union  of 
the  Eastern  and  Western  Churches  was  signed.  In  August 
it  was  published  in  the  Duomo  at  Florence,  and  the 
Te  Deum  was  sung  in  Greek. 

It  was  not  long  before  the  futility  of  all  these  proceed- 
ings became  apparent.  The  old  patriarch  had  died  just 
before  the  signing,  and  he  was  buried  in  the  baptistery  at 
Florence ;  so  he  had  escaped  from  the  dilemma.  But  the 
emperor's  own  brother,  Demetrius,  refused  to  sign  the  act 
of  union.  Neither  Mark  of  Ephesus  nor  any  of  the  bishops 
from  Georgia  would  be  present  at  the  grand  proclamation 
service.  When  at  Venice,  on  his  way  home,  the  bishop  of 
Heraclia  was  required  to  recite  the  creed  in  St.  Mark's,  he 
did  so  in  the  Greek  form — without  the  Filioque  clause. 
On  returning  to  the  East,  John  saw  to  his  chagrin  that 
all  his  efforts  had  been  spent  in  vain.  Mark  of  Ephesus 
led  the  opposition  to  union.  The  patriarchs  of  Antioch 
and  Alexandria  refused  to  sign  it.  The  union  was  never 
really  effected,  and  from  this  time  the  schism  went  on 
without  any  hope  of  healing. 

The  failure  of  the  last  important  attempt  to  unite  the 
Churches  was  inevitably  followed  by  coolness  on  the  part 
of  the  Western  peoples  towards  the  Greeks  and  indifference 
to  their  fate.  This  fact  should  be  duly  weighed  when  we 
are  inclined  to  charge  Europe  with  supine  stupidity  and 
heartless  selfishness  in  permitting  Constantinople  to  fall 
into  the  hands  of  the  Turks.  For  generations  that  great 
city  had  been  the  bulwark  of  Europe,  the  one  outstanding 
barrier  against  the  rising  tide  of  Asiatic  barbarism,  the  only 
safeguard  of  civilisation  against  savagery,  of  Christianity 
against  Islam.  In  the  inception  of  the  Crusades  this 
had  been  perceived  by  the  wiser  men  of  the  West.  To 
their  credit  let  it  be  said,  the  popes  had  seen  it  all  along, 
and    had    consistently    shaped    their    policy    accordingly. 


GREEK  CHURCH  AT  FALL  OF  BYZANTINE  EMPIRE   269 

Now  the  failure  of  the  council  of  Florence  finally  broke 
the  bonds  of  sympathy  between  the  East  and  the  West 
just  when  they  seemed  to  be  growing  into  some  real 
strength,  Constantinople  was  left  to  itself ;  the  con- 
sequence was  its  doom. 

When  the  war-cloud  was  threatening,  although  all 
hope  of  real  reunion  was  now  over,  John's  brother, 
Constantine,  who  had  succeeded  him,  effected  a  nominal 
union.  A  united  communion  was  held  at  St.  Sophia 
on  December  12,  1452,  and  the  names  of  the  Eastern 
and  Western  patriarchs  were  both  mentioned  in  the 
prayers.  But  the  people  looked  on  with  amazement  and 
horror  at  the  consecration  of  an  unleavened  wafer  by  the 
officiating  Latin  priest.  Rushing  out  in  wild  excitement  to 
the  cell  of  Gennadius — who  had  been  one  of  the  promoters 
of  union  at  Florence,  but  who  now  denounced  it — they 
cried,  "  What  occasion  have  we  for  succour,  or  union, 
or  Latins  ?  Far  from  us  be  the  worship  of  the  Azymites." 
The  first  minister  of  the  empire  was  heard  to  declare  that 
he  would  rather  see  in  Constantinople  Mohammed's  turban 
than  the  pope's  tiara  or  a  cardinal's  hat. 

Under  these  circumstances  the  really  surprising  thing 
is  that  the  city  had  held  out  so  long.  She  had  never 
recovered  from  the  fatal  blow  that  she  had  received  in 
the  conquest  and  ravages  of  the  Latins.  Her  final  struggle 
is  a  miracle  of  patriotic  heroism.  The  end  would  have 
come  much  sooner  than  was  the  case  if  it  had  not 
been  for  a  vast  unforeseen  movement  arising  in  another 
part  of  the  world.  Timour,  with  his  Tartar  host,  poured 
over  the  Turkish  Empire,  threatening  to  sweep  it  entirely 
away.  Then,  while  engaged  in  a  life  and  death  struggle, 
the  Turks  were  compelled  to  relinquish  their  encroach- 
ments on  the  Greeks  and  concentrate  their  attention 
on  their  own  affairs.  When  the  danger  had  passed  they 
returned  to  their  age-long  policy  of  absorbing  the  civilisa- 
tion of  Eastern  Europe.  These  Turks  were  of  the  Ottoman 
stock,  directly  connected  with  an  earlier  conqueror,  Genghis 
Khan,  who  had  devastated  Western  Asia,  and  therefore  they 


270  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

iiiuat  be  distinguished  from  the  Seljukian  Turks  whom  the 
Crusaders  had  found  in  possession  of  Asia  Minor  and  Syria. 
Their  leader  at  the  final  scene  was  Mohammed  il.,  a  man 
possessing  a  singular  combination  of  qualities,  showing  at 
one  time  the  student's  thirst  for  learning  and  at  another 
the  most  heartless  cruelty. 

The  scene  of  the  siege  and  fall  of  Constantinople  in 
the  year  1453  is  brought  vividly  before  us  in  Gibbon's 
famous  description,^  one  of  the  most  brilliant  passages 
in  English  literature.  But  the  journal  of  the  l:>esieged 
resident,  Nicolo  Barbaro,  which  was  not  known  to  Gibbon, 
has  enabled  Mr.  Pears  to  supplement  the  great  historian 
with  many  striking  details.  The  vital  character  of  the 
interests  at  stake  and  the  wide  range  of  the  issues  involved 
give  a  tragic  grandeur  to  this  event  only  comparable  with 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus. 

The  hero  of  the  siege  is  Constantine  Palteologus,  the 
last  Roman  emperor,  a  man  worthy  to  sit  on  the  throne 
of  the  greatest  of  his  predecessors.  By  the  aid  of  the 
GeneralJustiniani,  a  Genoese  noble,  Constantine  was  able  to 
organise  a  good  defence,  and  he  maintained  it  with  almost 
incredible  energy  and  courage. 

When  it  became  clear  that  there  was  no  hope  of 
deliverance,  and  that  the  end  was  approaching,  there  was 
no  panic.  A  spirit  of  religious  fervour  took  possession  of 
the  citizens.  They  formed  a  solemn  procession  in  which 
orthodox  Greeks  and  Catholics  of  the  Roman  communion 
united.  All  who  were  not  fighting  on  the  walls  joined  in 
the  Kyrie  Eleison,  as  they  marched  through  the  streets,  and 
a  great  cry  of  a  people  in  its  agony  went  up  to  heaven. 
Icons  and  relics  were  fetched  from  the  churches  and 
conveyed  to  the  places  where  the  defences  were  weakest, 
in  the  pathetic  hope  that  where  natural  means  failed 
supernatural  power  might  intervene.  Constantine  preached 
"  the  funeral  oration  of  the  empire " — to  use  Gibbon's 
phrase.  At  length  the  surging  host  of  invaders  broke 
Ihrough  a  weak  place  and  poured  into  the  city.  Then,  at 
*  DecUvp  and  Fall,  chap.  Ixviii. 


GREEK  CHURCH  AT  FALL  OP  BYZANTINE  EMPIRE       271 

the  most  critical  moment,  Justiniani  the  general  was 
wounded.  Soon  after  this  final  misfortune,  seeing  that  all 
was  lost,  and  refusing  to  survive  his  empire,  Constantino 
dashed  into  the  thick  of  the  fight  and  perished  amid  the 
multitude  of  the  slain. 

Mohammed  now  gave  the  city  up  to  plimder ;  but  he 
ordered  the  buildings  to  be  spared,  reserving  them  for 
himself.  St.  Sophia  was  found  to  be  crowded  with  fugitives, 
who  had  shut  themselves  up  in  their  beloved  cathedral, 
vainly  expecting  a  miracle  of  deliverence  to  spring  from  its 
sanctity.  They  were  caught  in  a  trap.  The  barred  door 
soon  yielded  to  the  battle-axes  of  the  Turks.  The  old  people 
were  killed  on  the  spot ;  the  young  men  and  women  were  led 
off  in  strings  of  captives  for  a  worse  fate.  The  Latins  had 
wantonly  hacked  to  pieces  many  a  work  of  art ;  now  the 
Turks  destroyed  much  that  they  had  left.  It  is  a  significaHt 
fact,  however,  that,  as  Critobulus  tells  us,  many  books  were 
sold  at  low  prices.^  This  suggests  the  hope  that  scattered 
treasures  from  the  Constantinople  libraries  may  yet  be 
found  in  out  of  the  way  parts  of  the  Turkish  Empire.^ 

St.  Sophia  was  now  converted  into  a  mosque.  Moham- 
med called  for  an  imaum,  who  ascended  the  pulpit  and 
there  recited  the  Mohammedan  Creed.  Still  he  did  not 
desire  the  city  to  be  deserted  by  the  Greeks,  and  he 
invited  them  back,  sanctioned  their  worship,  and  ordered 
them  to  elect  a  patriarch.  Accordingly,  a  local  synod  was 
held,  and  George  Scholarius — also  known  as  Gennadius 
— was  appointed  to  the  unenviable  post.  The  sultan 
received  him  at  his  seraglio  and  presented  him  with  a 
pastoral  cross  of  silver  and  gold,  saying,  "  Be  patriarch  and 
be  at  peace.  Count  upon  our  friendship  as  long  as  thou 
desirest  it,  and  thou  shalt  enjoy  all  the  privileges  of  thy 
predecessors." 

'  Critobulus,  xlii. 

*  It  would  be  well  if  consuls,  traders,  missionaries,  and  travellers  in 
Turkey  would  bear  this  in  mind.  Tliey  may  yet  discover  Papias's 
"Exposition  ol"  tlie  Oracles  of  the  God,"  "The  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews,"  or  even  Matthew's  Logia. 


272  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

This  investiture  of  the  patriarch  by  the  sultan  is  a 
sign  that  the  destruction  of  the  empire  was  not  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Church.  That  calamity  to  the  State  might 
even  have  been  the  salvation  of  the  Church.  During  the 
first  three  centuries  persecution  had  proved  a  wholesome 
discipline  preserving  the  vigour  of  primitive  Christianity. 
With  Constantine  the  Great's  patronage  of  the  Church, 
worldliness  invaded  the  whole  body  and  degeneration  fol- 
lowed. Now  the  fatal  alliance  was  severed,  and  once 
again  the  Church  was  set  apart  from  the  State  and  made 
liable  to  persecution.  But  she  could  not  recover  her 
pristine  vigour ;  she  felt  the  east  wind  of  adversity  to  be 
blighting,  rather  than  bracing. 

One  of  the  most  serious  evils  occasioned  by  the  fall  of 
Constantinople  was  the  heavy  blow  that  this  disaster  gave 
to  Oriental  learning.  Many  of  the  G-reek  scholars  fled  to 
Europe  and  there  assisted  the  Eenaissance.  But  con- 
temporary with  the  revival  of  learning  in  the  West  was 
its  decay  in  the  East.  The  priesthood  sank  into  insig- 
nificance and  lost  influence  for  lack  of  culture ;  preaching 
disappeared  ;  the  Church  became  intellectually  stagnant. 
Still,  there  were  not  wanting  proofs  of  fidelity  to  conscience. 
It  has  been  said  that  the  Church  that  can  produce  no 
martyrs  is  doomed.  There  have  been  martyrs  in  the  Greek 
Church  under  Turkish  dominance  all  down  the  centuries. 
Treated  as  rayahs,  as  mere  cattle,  with  no  civil  rights, 
the  Christians  have  always  suffered  from  disabilities  and 
the  infliction  of  unchecked  wrongs.  Yet  they  have  re- 
mained true  to  their  faith ;  and  thus  their  conduct  has 
testified  continuously  to  a  fidelity  for  which  their  brethren 
in  the  "West,  who  have  not  had  to  endure  their  age-long 
trials,  have  been  too  slow  to  give  them  credit. 


CHAPTER   IX 

LIFE  AND  LETTERS  IN  THE  BYZANTINE  CHURCH 

(a)  Greek  historians  named  in  earlier  chapters. 

(6)  Neale,  Eastern  Church,  Introd.,  and  Hymns  of  the  Eastern 
Church,  1876  ;  Pitra,  Hymnoijraphie  de  VEijlise  Gr^que,  1867  ; 
Brownlie,  Hymns  of  the  Holy  Eastern  Church,  1902  ;  Gurzon, 
Monasteries  of  the  Levant,  new  edit.,  1897 ;  Lecky,  History  of 
European  Morals,  vol.  ii.,  1868  ;  Krumbaclier,  Geschichte  der 
Byzantinischen  Litteratur  von  Justinian  his  zum  Ende  des 
Ostromischen  Beiches,  1897. 

The  organisation  of  the  Greek  Church  which  was  com- 
pleted during  the  patristic  period  has  never  since  under- 
gone vital  modifications  in  any  of  the  three  branches  of  its 
constitution — its  dogma,  its  ritual,  its  government — except- 
ing in  so  far  as  the  last  has  been  affected  by  political 
influences.  The  Monophysite  and  Monothelete  controversies 
about  the  nature  and  will  of  Christ  were  the  last  serious 
discussions  on  the  creed.  Henceforth  it  became  the  duty 
of  scholars  and  logicians  to  defend  the  settled  dogmas  of 
the  Church,  which  was  deemed  to  be  holy  chiefly  because 
orthodox.  The  Western  Church  still  felt  free  to  develop 
truth,  and  it  was  the  clash  of  new  ideas  with  conservative 
loyalty  to  settled  doctrine  that  produced  the  final  and 
irrevocable  breach  with  Eome.  Henceforth  the  Greek 
theologians  were  to  be  apologists,  but  not  primarily  in  the 
region  of  Christian  evidences ;  they  were  more  concerned 
with  the  polemics  of  heresy  within  the  Church  than  with 
the  war  with  unbelief  outside  her  borders.  Nevertheless, 
the  insistent  presence  of  Islam  also  demanded  a  defence  of 

l8  »73 


274  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

the  faith  against  the  unbeliever,  and  called  for  apologetic 
literature  of  a  more  general  character. 

Faint  echoes  of  old  controversies  agitated  the  Church 
from  time  to  time.  In  tlie  reign  of  Mainiel  Comnenus 
there  was  a  scholastic  discussion  as  to  wliether  Christ  pre- 
sented His  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  world  only  to  the 
First  and  Third  Persons  of  the  Trinity,  or  also  to  the  Second, 
the  Logos.  A  synod  at  Constantinople  in  the  year  1156 
decided  for  the  latter  contention,  and  therefore  decreed  that 
Christ  offered  His  sacrifice  in  part  to  Himself.  Ten  years 
later  a  question  of  the  two  natures  was  revived  on  the 
words  of  Christ,  "  My  Father  is  greater  than  I."  To  which 
nature  did  they  refer — the  Divine  or  the  human  ?  Heated 
discussions  followed,  and  much  excitement  was  roused 
among  all  classes  of  society.  The  Emperor  Manuel  favoured 
the  view  that  the  phrase  applied  to  the  God-man,  to  the 
whole  incarnate  personality,  and  this  view  was  confirmed 
by  a  synod  held  in  the  year  1166.  It  is  mournful  to 
note  that  even  with  regard  to  so  obscure  a  question  as 
this  no  freedom  of  thought  was  permitted.  Those  who 
refused  to  accept  the  decree  of  the  synod  were  banished 
and  their  goods  confiscated.  But  these  discussions,  though 
very  exciting  at  the  time,  left  no  permanent  effects  on 
the  established  orthodoxy,  and  therefore  they  cannot  be 
regarded  as  landmarks  of  any  importance  in  the  history  of 
doctrine. 

Since  the  Greek  Church  has  not  changed  materially  in 
its  doctrine  or  ritual  through  all  the  intervening  centuries 
down  to  our  own  day,  it  may  be  as  well  to  state  here  once 
for  all  the  principal  points  of  interest  concerning  the  latter 
subject — namely,  the  ritual.  The  doctrine  has  been  illus- 
trated in  the  previous  pages. 

The  seven  sacraments  are  accepted  by  the  Eastern  as 
well  as  by  the  Western  Church.  Baptism  continues  to  be 
observed  in  the  form  of  immersion.  It  is  administered  to 
infants,  and  at  the  same  time  they  are  anointed  on  the 
eyes,  mouth,  nose,  ears,  and  breast.  Confirmation,  which 
follows  immediately,  can  he  administered  by  presbyters — 


LIFE    AND    LETTERS    IN    THE    BYZANTINE    CHURCH    275 

a  difference  from  the  Western  canonical  arrangement,  which 
confines  this  rite  to  the  bishop.  Penance  is  enacted,  but  it 
never  developed  in  the  East  to  the  elaborate  proportions 
and  with  the  mechanical  devices  which  gave  rise  to  the 
sale  of  indulgences  in  the  West.  The  priest  tells  the 
penitent  that  he  is  a  sinner  himstlf,  he  cannot  forgive ; 
only  God  forgives.  Nevertheless  he  pronounces  absolution. 
The  Eucharist  is  treated  equally  in  both  churches  as  the 
most  sacred  office  of  religion.  Ordination  can  only  be 
conferred  by  a  bishop,  and  throughout  the  hierarchy 
the  inferior  is  ordained  by  his  superior.  Marriage  is  a 
sacrament  carefully  guarded  by  the  Church.  The  higher 
clergy  may  not  marry  after  ordination.  Bishops  may  not 
have  wives  at  all,  and  therefore  the  episcopate  is  mainly 
supplied  by  monks.  Presbyters  are  married  before  ordina- 
tion and  retain  their  wives  for  life  ;  but  if  one  becomes 
a  widower  he  may  not  take  a  second  wife.  Second  mar- 
riages among  the  laity  are  permitted,  or  rather  condoned, 
but  not  favoured.  Third  marriages  are  forbidden  and 
treated  as  sinful.  Unction  is  practised  not  so  much  as 
the  viaticum,  known  as  "  extreme  unction,"  but  for  the 
benefit  of  the  sick  who  may  be  restored. 

The  government  of  the  Church  is  maintained  without 
material  alteration  in  a  settled  hierarchical  form.  But 
the  pre-eminence  of  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople  becomes 
more  pronounced  in  his  own  provinces,  and  less  effectual 
elsewhere.  This  twofold  development  was  wholly  due  to 
political  causes.  The  weakening  of  the  Byzantine  govern- 
ment gave  greater  scope  and  wider  range  to  the  authority 
of  the  Church.  Next  to  the  accession  of  a  new  emperor  the 
most  important  event  in  Constantinople  was  the  election  of 
the  patriarch.  We  now  find  patriarchs  rebuking  and  even 
defying  the  throne  with  a  force  and  a  freedom  hitherto 
unknown  in  the  East,  and  more  like  the  spirit  of  the  great 
ecclesiastics  of  Eome.  On  the  other  hand,  the  absorption 
of  Syria  and  Egypt  into  the  realm  of  the  caliphs  and 
sultans  made  the  patriarchs  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and 
Jerusalem  prisoners  in  their  own  cities,  and  cut  them  off  to 


276  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

a  great  extent  from  intercourse  with  Constantinople.  This 
enforced  isolation  of  the  three  Eastern  patriarchs  became 
an  important  factor  in  the  final  severance  of  the  Churches. 

The  conduct  of  worship  in  the  Byzantine  Church  was 
also  continued  without  serious  alteration  during  this  period, 
the  ritual  becoming  more  and  more  stereotyped.  This  was 
centred  in  the  communion  office,  which,  known  as  the 
"  mass  "  in  the  West,  is  named  in  the  East  the  "  liturgy."  ^ 
At  first  every  bishop  was  free  to  adopt  his  own  forms  of 
prayer,  though  the  liturgy  of  St.  James  was  largely  accepted 
as  the  common  basis.  In  its  present  form  this  cannot  be 
older  than  the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  but  no  doubt  it  is 
a  development  from  more  ancient  times.  It  was  primarily 
intended  for  use  in  the  Church  at  Jerusalem.  Next  came 
the  liturgy  of  St.  Basil,  which  is  founded  on  the  liturgy  of 
St.  James,  but  is  much  longer  and  more  elaborate ;  and 
after  that  the  liturgy  of  St.  Chrysostom,  which  is  not  so 
long.  These  two  together  constitute  the  Byzantine  litur- 
gies, the  lengthy  liturgy  of  St.  Basil  being  used  only  on 
certain  occasions.^  Originating  in  Asia  Minor  this  became 
the  basis  of  the  Armenian  liturgy.  The  liturgy  of  St. 
Chrysostom  was  primarily  the  form  of  worship  adopted  in 
Constantinople,  and  it  became  the  normal  service  for  the 
Byzantine  Church  on  all  Sundays  except  the  few  to  which 
the  liturgy  of  St.  Basil  was  assigned. 

The  service  books  of  the  Greek  Church  are  in  fourteen 
quarto  volumes.  They  consist  of  three  parts — hymns, 
poetry,  portions  of  Scripture.  No  separate  Bibles  are 
published  for  the  use  of  the  people,  although  the  action  of 
the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  in  circulating  the 
Scriptures  is  not  hindered  by  the  Greek  Church  officials  as 
it  is  by  the  Eoman  Catholic  hierarchy,  and  in  some  cases  it 
is  welcomed  gratefully  and  encouraged.  This  Church  pro- 
vides manuals,  vade  mecums  for  services,  especially  for  the 
burial  service.     It  looks  askance  at   the  Eussian  Church 

'  \eiTovpyla. 

^  I.ent  (exccjit  Palm  Sunday),  the  eve  of  E2>ipliaiiy,  Easter,  and  Christmas, 
and  the  feast  of  St.  Basil. 


LIFE    AND    LETTERS    IN    THE    BYZANTINE    CHURCH    277 

for  its  alterations  of  the  old  service  books  and  other  in- 
novations. 

In  the  Greek  Church  the  communion  service  is  more 
lengthy,  elaborate,  and  dramatic  than  the  Roman  mass. 
There  are  prayers  and  lessons,  but  every  function  of  the 
service  is  accompanied  by  some  action.  While  the  Western 
ceremonial  appeals  to  the  soul  mainly  through  the  ear,  the 
Eastern  seeks  to  awaken  the  interest  and  chain  the 
attention  more  by  its  appeal  to  the  eye  in  richly  varied 
symbolical  acts  performed  by  the  priests  and  deacons.  The 
congregation  watches  the  stir  and  movement  of  an  elaborate 
moving  function.  Now  the  candles  are  lighted  ;  now  they 
are  extinguished ;  doors  are  opened,  closed  again ;  the 
clergy  kiss  the  altar,  kiss  the  gospel,  cross  the  forehead, 
mouth,  and  breast ;  there  is  the  swinging  of  the  censer ;  the 
liturgical  vestments  are  frequently  changed  so  that  the 
worshipping  spectator  may  have  passing  before  his  gaze  a 
kaleidoscopic  variation  of  colour — each  tint  having  its 
special  symbolism ;  processions,  genuflections,  prostrations, 
all  have  their  part  in  the  great  ceremonial.  Much  of  this 
is  to  be  witnessed  in  a  Eoman  high  mass,  but  not  with  the 
volume  and  variety  of  symbolism  seen  in  the  performance 
of  the  Greek  liturgy.  The  pomp  and  ceremony  of  the 
Church  is  parallel  to  the  pomp  and  ceremony  of  the  court 
described  with  so  much  unction  by  the  literary  Emperor 
Constantine  Pogonatus.  It  agrees  with  the  stiff  em- 
broidered and  jewelled  vestments,  the  enamelled  icons,  the 
2old  and  mosaic  decorations  of  the  basilicas  in  which  it  is 
the  scenic  drama  of  worship.  There  is  no  attempt  in  all 
this  to  rouse  enthusiasm ;  that  can  be  done  by  the  sermon 
which  precedes  and  prepares  for  it,  when  the  excitable 
congregation  clap  and  shout  and  wave  their  handkerchiefs 
at  the  eloquent  periods  of  some  popular  preacher.^  In  the 
liturgy,  on  the  other  hand,  all  is  decorum.  The  people 
join  in  the  responses ;  they  wail  the  Kyrie  Eleison ;  they 
make  the  dome  ring  again  with  the  mighty   chant  of  the 

^  This  was  the  ancient  custom.     To-day  preaching  is  rarely  heard  in  the 

Greek  Church. 


278  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Trisagiou ;  but  it  is  all  ordered  and  disciplined,  and  the  de- 
sired result  is  awe  and  faith,  rather  than  energy  and  action. 
Nevertheless,  while  so  much  was  done  to  make  the 
central  facts  of  Christianity  as  embodied  in  the  life-story  of 
Christ  vivid  and  impressive  by  means  of  elaborate  appeals 
to  the  sensuous  imagination,  it  was  not  here  that  people 
found  satisfaction  for  their  strongest  religious  appetites. 
Through  much  of  our  period  preaching  was  still  prominent, 
liible  reading  has  always  been  encouraged  in  the  Greek 
Church.  People  could  go  to  the  churches  and  read  the 
Bibles  there  for  themselves.  Unlike  the  modern  Eoman 
service  in  an  unknown  tongue,  the  Greek  service  was  con- 
ducted in  Greek,  the  language  of  the  people.  All  the 
ancient  services  were  carried  on  in  the  languages  spoken 
by  the  congregations  engaged  in  them.  In  spite  of  this 
fact  the  intellectual  element  was  not  the  most  prominent, 
nor  did  the  ideas  so  skilfully  interwoven  into  the  rich 
symbolism  of  the  liturgy  really  grip  the  people  who 
watched  the  ceremonial  and  took  part  in  the  reponses. 
This  is  proved  by  what  we  have  seen  in  the  historic 
controversies  of  the  Byzantine  age.  Relics  were  deemed 
more  important  than  ritual,  icons  than  liturgy.  To  treasure 
a  saint's  bone  or  kiss  a  picture  of  Christ — this  was  what 
most  concerned  the  Greek  Christian  of  the  Byzantine 
period  in  the  matter  of  religion,  Tlie  best  teachers  of  the 
Church  deprecated  the  fetishism  of  relic  worship ;  but  they 
were  powerless  to  stem  the  tide  of  superstition  that  swept 
over  East  and  West  alike. 

After  this  the  stoutest  Protestant  may  regard  the 
invocation  of  the  Virgin  and  saints,  and  even  the  worship 
offered  to  them,  as  intelligent  in  comparison  with  such 
child  isli  superstition.  A  new  mythology  sprang  up,  and 
legends  of  the  saints  took  the  place  of  pagan  myths.  Thus 
the  martyr  Phocas,  a  gardener  at  Sinope  in  Pontus,  super- 
seded Castor  and  Pollux  as  the  sailors'  guardian.  On 
board  ship  he  had  his  portion  set  for  him  at  table  and 
then  sold,  the  proceeds  being  given  to  the  poor  as  a  thank- 
offering  for  a  prosperous  voyage. 


LIFE   AND   LETTERS   IN   THE   BYZANTINE   CHURCH    279 

Learning  and  literature  flourished  during  the  Byzantine 
period,  though  not  so  as  greatly  to  enrich  the  libraries  of 
bibliophiles  in  later  ages.  Like  the  Benedictine  monasteries 
in  the  West,  the  Basilian  monasteries  of  the  Greek  Church 
guarded  and  transmitted  the  writings  of  the  great  Church 
teachers,  the  monks  diligently  copying  manuscripts  and 
laboriously  constructing  catenoe  of  the  opinions  of  the 
Fathers.  But  while  their  reading  was  wide,  it  was  not 
deep ;  they  were  scholarly,  but  uncritical.  They  lacked 
imagination,  invention,  constructiveness.  It  is  a  striking 
fact  that  the  stream  of  ecclesiastical  history  which  flowed 
so  copiously  through  the  previous  centuries  now  began 
to  run  dry,  or  rather  perhaps  we  should  say,  was  now 
diverted  into  the  main  river  of  political  and  secular  history. 
This  is  the  age  of  the  voluminous  Byzantine  historians. 
Anybody  who  attempts  to  wade  through  their  pages  must 
soon  be  wearied  with  their  unhappy  attempts  at  cumulative 
rhetoric.  The  style  reminds  us  of  popular  Victorian  prose 
at  its  worst.  There  is  a  constantly  recurring  effort  at  pro- 
ducing effects  by  piling  up  clauses  one  upon  another  till  a 
sentence  is  sometimes  expanded  to  the  extent  of  a  page  of 
print.  Theophanes  is  about  the  last  of  the  writers  who 
retain  some  traces  of  the  literary  spirit  of  Thucydides.  He 
gives  weight  to  his  narrative  by  his  own  contributions  of 
poKtical  wisdom.  But,  for  the  most  part,  these  narratives 
are  choked  with  colourless  details — details  which  neither 
characterise  nor  vitalise  the  narrative.  They  are  barren 
of  serious  reflection,  in  place  of  which  we  have  pages  of 
flat  narrative  varied  by  bursts  of  adulation  or  vitu- 
peration. 

After  allowing  for  undeniable  defects,  we  must  per- 
ceive that  these  were  not  dark  ages,  nor  were  they  inert 
or  infructuous  according  to  their  kind.  After  John  of 
Damascus,  the  last  of  the  Fathers,  the  next  gi-eat  writer 
and  the  last  of  his  own  calibre  is  Photius,^  who  died  in  the 
year  891.  His  chief  work  is  the  BiUiotheca^  an  encyclo- 
paedia of  literature,  containing  accounts  of  nearly  three 
»  See  pages  235,  ff.  *  Mvpiopi^\toy. 


280  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

liuudred  Christian  and  pagan  works  together  with  "elegant 
extracts";  unfortunately  a  great  part  of  this  book  has 
been  lost.  His  Nomocanon  is  the  basis  of  Green  canon 
law,  the  first  systematical  arrangement  of  which  known 
to  us  was  drawn  up  by  Johannes  Scholasticus  (John  the 
Lawyer),  a  presbyter  at  Antioch,  who  afterwards  became 
patriarch  of  Constantinople  (a.d.  565).^  About  the  year 
1180,  Photius's  Nomocanon  was  commented  on  by  Theodore 
Balsamon,  a  deacon  of  Constantinople,  as  the  standard 
collection  of  canon  law  for  the  Eastern  Church.  Photius 
was  a  voluminous  writer,  narrow  in  view,  bitter  in  tone. 
His  works  include  controversial  treatises  against  the  Latins 
and  against  the  Paulicians,  and  among  other  books  the 
Ampliilochia^  containing  answers  to  more  than  three 
hundred  questions  put  to  him  by  Amphilochius  of  Cyzicus. 
With  Photius  we  come  to  the  end  of  the  great  Greek 
Church  writers  whose  names  are  known  to  fame.  But 
the  period  of  the  Comnenian  dynasty  was  the  Augustan 
age  of  the  Byzantine  Empire — in  some  respects  comparable 
to  our  age  of  Queen  Anne  rather  than  to  our  glorious 
Elizabethan  period.  Then  we  have  that  fierce  opponent 
and  libeller  of  the  Paulicians,  Michael  Psellus,  a  man  of  wide 
culture,  and  a  writer  on  a  variety  of  subjects,  who  earned  a 
reputation  as  a  teacher  of  philosophy.^  He  died  in  the  year 
1105,  leaving,  among  other  books,  a  work  on  demonology^ 
which  contains  an  invaluable  store  of  information  with 
respect  to  raedieeval  notions  on  a  subject  then  deemed  of 
vital  importance,  and  a  compendium  of  universal  science 

*  This  work  by  John  the  Lawyer  was  based  on  still  earlier  collections. 
It  reduced  the  sixty  heads  of  canon  law  in  the  older  writers  to  fifty,  ana 
added  to  the  canons  of  Nicaea,  Ancyra,  Neo-Caesarea,  Gangra,  Antioch, 
Rphesus,  and  Constantinople,  already  collected  and  received  in  the  Greek 
Church,  the  "Apostolical  canons,"  the  canons  of  Sardica,  and  those  con- 
tained in  the  canonical  letter  of  Basil.  When  at  Constantinople  John 
edited  an  abridgment  of  his  earlier  work  with  the  addition  of  a  comparison 
of  the  imperial  rescripts  and  civil  laws  (especially  the  Novels  of  Justinian) 
under  the  title  Nomocanon.  See  Smith's  Dictionary  of  Chr.  Biog.  vol.  iii. 
p.  366,  col.  2. 

^  'A/u0i\6xta-  '  He  was  called  <fn\o(r6(pup  liTrraros. 

*  vepl  ivepyeids  Saifj-Svup. 


LIFE    AND    LETTERS    IN    THE    BYZANTINE    CHURCH    281 

based  on  theology,^  useful  as  a  cyclopaedia  of  the  knowledge 
of  his  age.  Theophylact,  the  archbishop  of  Achrida  in 
Bulgaria,  was  a  contemporary  of  Psellus,  who  composed  a 
commentary  in  the  form  of  a  catena.  Euthymius  Zigabenus, 
a  monk  at  Constantinople,  wrote  a  reply  to  the  heretics  at 
the  command  of  the  Emperor  Alexius  Comnenus,  a  mere 
compilation,  though  famous  in  its  day.  Eustathius,  the 
archbishop  of  Thessalonica,  was  a  commentator  on  Homer 
and  Pindar,  but  also  a  Christian  theologian  and  a  reformer 
of  monasticism.  Michael  Acominatus,  a  respected  states- 
man at  Constantinople,  produced  a  defence  of  orthodoxy  in 
opposition  to  the  heretics,  which  is  deemed  an  abler  and 
more  independent  work  than  Eutbymius's  official  book 
written  to  order.  Nicolas  of  Methone  in  Messenia  com- 
posed a  reply  to  the  Neo-Platonist  Proclus,  in  which  he 
anticipated  Anselm's  doctrine  of  redemption.  All  these 
writers  belong  to  the  same  prolific  period  of  late  Greek 
literature.  The  emperor's  own  daughter  Anna  has  already 
been  mentioned.  She  takes  her  place  among  the  Byzantine 
historians. 

Coming  to  the  next  period,  which  follows  the  disorders 
and  miseries  of  the  Latin  usurpation,  we  have  two  centuries 
of  less  brilliant,  but  still  more  or  less  continuous  literary 
activity  under  the  Palaeologi  (a.d.  1250-1453),  chiefly 
occupied  with  the  question  of  reunion  with  Western 
Christendom.  It  is  refreshing  to  discover  in  the  midst 
of  this  controversy  a  man  who  would  direct  our  attention 
away  from  arid  theological  and  ecclesiastical  polemics  to 
the  eternal  verities.  This  is  Nicolas  Cabasilas,  archbishop 
of  Thessalonica,  a  mystic,  who  defended  his  brother  mystics 
at  Mount  Athos  when  they  were  charged  with  heresy, 
and  that  with  a  depth  of  spirituality  which  throws  a 
favourable  light  on  what,  when  seen  among  the  monks, 
has  been  regarded  as  an  ignorant  superstition.  The  very 
title  of  this  book  is  like  a  gleam  of  light  from  heaven  in 
a  world  of  very  secular  ecclesiasticism,  for  that  title  is 
■Co7ice.rni7ui  the  Life  in  Christ}     The  mystics  are  of  no  age 

'  AiSacTK-aXtd  wavToSairr).  ^  irepl  ttjs  iv  XpiaTw  fw^J. 


282  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 


or 


of  all   the  ages.     They  stand  apart  from  the  logical 
development   of   doctrine   and   pursue   a   method  of  their 
own,  which  is  always  essentially  the  same.      Cabasilas  was 
a    contemporary   of   John   Tauler,   for   he   died   in    1354, 
while  Tauler  died  but  seven  years  later  (in  1361).     These 
two,  the  former  in  Greece,  the  latter  in  Germany,  apparently 
having  no  connection  one  with  the  other,  agree  in  their 
vital  principles  and  join  hands  with  the  pseudo-Dionysius 
in  the  patristic  period  and  with  William  Law  in  modern 
times.     Like  our  Western  mystics  who  were  forerunners 
of    the    Eeformation,    but    more   openly    and    actively  so, 
Nicolas   Cabasilas  was  an   opposing  influence   against  the 
deadening  formalism  of  the  Greek  Clmrch.      He  wrote  a 
mystical  exposition  of  the  liturgy  to  bring  out  its  spiritual 
meaning.      Other  writers  of  this  later  period  are  Demetrius 
Cydonius,  a  contemporary  of  Cabasilas,  who  wrote  on  "  Con- 
tempt  of   Death " — Simeon    of    Thessalonica,   who    comes 
about  fifty  years  later,  and  whose  book  on  The  Faith,  The 
Rites,   and    the    Mysteries    of    the    Church    is    a    valuable 
storehouse  of  ecclesiastical  archaeology — Marcus  Eugenicus 
of  Ephesus,  the  ablest  opponent  of  the  reunion  which  was 
supposed  to  have  been  effected  at  Florence,  who  also  wrote 
a  defence  of  the  doctrine  of  eternal  punishment  in  answer 
to  John  VII.,  Palseologus,  who  had  objected  to  it  as  incon- 
sistent with  God's  justice  and  man's  frailty — Gennadius, 
afterwards   known  as  George   Scholarius,  whom   we  have 
already  met,^  forced  to  be  a  supporter  of  the  union  when 
at   Florence,  but  afterwards  its  most  energetic  opponent. 
More  popular  by  far   than  any  of   these   works  was   the 
romance  of  Barlaam  and  Josaphat,  a  book  which  was  to 
the  Middle  Ages  what  the  Shepherd  of  Hcrmas  had  been 
to  the  early  Church  at  Rome,  and  what  Bunyan's  Pilgrim's 
Progress   has    become    to    modern   readers.     It  was    their 
favourite  religious   book,   because   concrete   and   dramatic. 
In  fact  it  was  the  one  religious  novel  of  the  time.      In  the 
Latin  version  of  it,  this  book  was  even  more  widely  read  in 
the  West  than   in   its  earlier  Eastern  home.      It  is  found 

1  See  page  269. 


LIFE    AND    LETTERS    IN    THE   BYZANTINE    CHURCH    283 

complete  or  in  part  in  an  immense  number  of  manuscripts. 
An  uncritical  age  attributed  it  to  John  of  Damascus, 
among  whose  works  it  appears ;  but  this  tradition  can- 
not be  maintained.  The  book  was  long  read  as  veritable 
history,  and  accordingly  the  Eoman  Martyrology  honours 
its  two  heroes  as  saints  and  assigns  the  27th  of  November 
as  their  day.  But  its  remarkable  resemblance  to  the 
legendary  life  of  Buddha  in  the  Latita  Vistara  led  to 
its  being  traced  back  to  that  Indian  source  by  Dr. 
Liebrecht.^  Josaphat  is  the  son  of  the  king  of  "  the 
land  of  the  Ethiopians  called  India,"  who  is  kept 
by  his  father  in  the  royal  park  and  palace  in  close 
seclusion  so  that  he  may  see  nothing  of  the  evil  or  misery 
of  the  world,  and  especially  that  he  may  not  come  into 
contact  with  Christianity  and  monasticism,  which  his  father 
is  endeavouring  to  repress.  But  he  gets  leave  to  ride 
abroad,  and  then  sees  a  cripple  and  a  blind  man,  with 
the  result  that  he  is  greatly  depressed  and  saddened. 
While  he  is  in  this  state  he  receives  a  visit  from  Barlaam, 
a  monk  disguised  as  a  merchant,  who  has  been  sent  to 
India  by  a  Divine  vision.  The  result  is  Josaphat's  con- 
version. When  the  king  learns  of  this  he  is  much 
distressed,  and  in  order  to  distract  his  son's  attention 
divides  with  him  the  government  of  his  realm,  but  at 
length  he  too  is  led  over  to  Christianity  by  his  son's 
influence.  Finally,  Josaphat  renounces  his  high  position, 
goes  on  a  journey  in  quest  of  his  spiritual  father  Barlaam, 
whom  after  two  years  of  weary  wandering  at  length  he 
finds  living  as  a  hermit  in  a  cave.  He  stays  witli  Barlaam 
for  the  rest  of  his  life,  and  there  the  dead  bodies  of  the 
saints  are  found  long  after  untouched  by  decay  in  the 
odour  of  sanctity. 

It  remains  for  us  to  notice  one  other  form  of  litera- 
ture originated  in  this  period,  the  Greek  Christian  poetry, 
consisting  chiefly  of  hymns.      Much  of  this  has  been  made 

^  See  Ebert's  Jahrbuch  fiir  rom.  und  engl.  Literatur,  1860,  ii.  pp.  314- 
334 ;  cf.  St.  Hilaire,  Le  Bouddha  et  sa  Religimi,  and  Max  Muller,  on 
"Migration  of  Fables,"  Contemporary  Remew,  vol.  xiv.  pp.  572-599. 


284  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

I'iimiliar  to  English  readers  by  the  versions  of  Neale  and 
others.  We  have  traces  of  Cliristian  liynnis  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  Pliny  refers  to  the  singing  of  them  in  the 
churches  of  Bithynia  at  the  time  of  Trajan.^  St.  Basil 
refers  to  a  hymn  of  the  martyr  Athenogenes,  who  died  in 
the  year  169,  "Which  as  he  was  hurrying  on  to  his  per- 
fecting by  fire  he  left  as  a  kind  of  farewell  gift  to  his 
friends."  ^  Hymns  and  psalms  always  had  their  place  in 
Christian  worship.^  During  the  fourth  century  Church 
psalmody  was  much  advanced,  first  in  Syria  by  Ephraim, 
then  at  Constantinople  by  Chrysostom  and  others,  later  in 
the  West,  especially  under  the  influence  of  Ambrose.  There 
is  a  question  whether  the  Greek  hymns  of  the  fourth 
century  were  metric ;  but  though  that  may  have  been  the 
case,  there  is  no  doubt  that  from  the  eighth  century  onward 
Greek  hymns  were  simply  rhythmic,  not  metric,  and  were 
used  like  the  psalms  for  chanting.  Three  or  more  stanzas, 
called  troparia,^  constituted  an  ode,  three  odes  a  triodeon, 
and  three  triodia  a  canon.  It  was  usual  for  each  ode  to 
end  with  a  doxa,  i.e.  a  doxology,  and  a  theotokion,^  which 
was  a  stanza  in  honour  of  Mary  as  the  mother  of  God. 
These  hymns  occupy  the  greater  part  of  the  Greek  service 
book.  Most  of  them  are  rubbish ;  ^  but  among  them  are 
gems  of  immortal  value. 

The  great  age  of  hymn-writers  commences  with  the 
eighth  century,  and  at  its  head  stands  John  of  Damascus, 
who  was  thought  to  be  inspired  by  the  Virgin  Mary,  the 
patron  of  his  convent  at  Mar  Saba.  His  canon  for  Easter 
Day,  known  as  the  "  golden  canon,"  sung  at  midnight  on 
Easter  Eve,  begins  with  the  words,  "  Christ  is  risen,"  to 
which   the  antiphonal  shout  is  "  Christ  is  risen   indeed." 

1  Epist.  97. 

-  De  Spiritu  Sando,  xxix.  73.  This  has  been  identified  with  two  early 
hymus,  the  A6fa  iv  vxpiffTois  {Gloria  in  excelsis),  and  the  ^i2s  iXapdv,  still 
used  in  the  Greek  daily  service. 

'  e.g.  Eusebius,  Hist.  Ecd.  v.  28. 

*  rpoirdpiov,  a  small  rpbiros  or  mode.  *  QcotokLov. 

*  A  "deluge  of  worthless  compositions,"  Neale,  Hymns  of  the  Eastern 
Church,  3rd  edit.  p.  38. 


LIFE   AND    LETTERS    IN    THE    BYZANTINE    CHURCH    285 

Then  we  have  John's  foster-brother  and  fellow  -  monk, 
Cosmas  of  Jerusalem,  "  the  Melodist,"  whom  Neale  regards 
as  the  most  learned  of  the  Greek  poets.  Stephen  the 
Sabaite,  a  nephew  of  John  of  Damascus,  who  spent  fifty- 
nine  years  in  the  convent  of  Mar  Saba,  is  the  author  of 
the  Greek  composition  on  which  Neale  founded  his  well- 
known  English  hymn — 

"Art  thou  weary,  art  thou  languid?" 

Another  hymn-writer  was  Theophanes  the  historian,  known 
as  "  the  Branded,"  who  was  mutilated  for  his  devotion  to 
the  icons  and  died  about  a.d.  820.  Theodore  of  Studium 
and  his  brother  Joseph  come  half  a  century  later  (about 
A.D.  890).  Lastly,  there  is  Theocristus,  in  the  same 
monastery  at  Constantinople,  the  author  of  "a  sup- 
pliant canon  to  Jesus,"  which  Dr.  Neale  angUcises  in 
the  hymn^ — 

"Jesu,  name  all  names  above, 

Jesu,  best  and  dearest, 
Jesu,  Fount  of  perfect  love, 

Holiest,  tenderest,  nearest ! 
Jesu,  source  of  grace  completest, 
Jesu  truest,  Jesu  sweetest, 

Jesu,  well  of  power  Divine, 

Make  me,  keep  me,  seal  me  Thine,"  etc. 

The  Church  which  could  produce  such  a  hymn  as  that  will 
be  entirely  misjudged  if  it  is  only  viewed  in  the  light  of 
the  quarrels  of  its  bishops  with  heretics  and  schismatics. 
It  was  the  end  of  the  ninth  century,  too,  that  age  which 
was  the  darkest  of  the  Dark  Ages  in  the  West,  when  a 
monk  in  the  great  Constantinople  monastery  poured  out 
his  soul  in  one  of  the  hymns  of  truest  adoration  and  love 
for  his  Lord  ever  produced,  anticipating  similar  hymns  of 
personal  devotion  to  Christ  in  the  two  Bernards  at  Clair- 
vaux  and  Cluny.  It  is  in  its  hymns  that  we  can  trace 
the  course  of  a  pure  stream  of  genuine  spiritual  religion 
that     is    sometimes    forced     underground     when     we    are 

^  The  Greek  begins,  'Itjo-oO  yXvKVTaTt,  etc. 


286  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

watching  the  external  course  of  Church  history — its  angry 
dehates,  greedy  ambitions,  and  bitter  antipathies.  These 
utdy  phenomena  make  uj)  too  much  of  the  history  of  the 
(Jhurch  ;  they  are  scarcely  at  all  indicative  of  the  history 
of  Christianity,  the  history  of  spiritual  religion.  For 
understanding  this  we  are  better  helped  by  the  stories  of 
obscure  lives  and  the  breathing  of  simple  souls.  Tlie 
hymn-writing  continued  through  the  tenth  century  and  on 
into  the  middle  of  the  eleventh,  when  it  sank  into  silence. 
It  was  no  time  for  song  when  the  Turks  were  pouring  over 
the  larger  part  of  Eastern  Christendom,  and  the  very 
existence  of  Church  and  empire  were  at  stake ;  nor  again 
when  the  West  came  to  their  relief  in  the  dubious  garb  of 
Crusaders  commissioned  by  the  pope  of  Eome,  with  whom 
they  would  have  nothing  to  do. 

During  all  this  time,  both  in  the  West  and  in  the  East, 
monasticism  was  cherished  as  the  ideal  of  the  religious 
life  and  the  true  monk  was  regarded  as  the  typical  saint. 
Two  great  monastic  centres  are  now  especially  conspicuous. 
One  of  these  is  the  monastery  at  Studium,  made  famous 
as  the  scene  of  tlie  work  of  Theodore.  Here  a  very  active 
common  life  was  maintained.  We  have  seen  how  it 
was  a  centre  of  opposition  to  the  iconoclastic  movement. 
It  was  the  home  of  a  succession  of  writers  of  devout 
hymns  of  the  ( rreek  Church.  It  was  also  the  place  where 
the  reproduction  of  literature  in  the  form  of  beautifully 
written  manuscripts  was  carried  on  with  the  greatest 
assiduity  guided  by  the  best  taste,  so  that  this  monastery 
may  be  regarded  as  taking  the  place  of  a  modern  uni- 
versity press  and  school  of  technology  in  one  of  the 
finest  and  most  characteristic  arts  of  the  Middle  Ages. 

The  other  great  monastic  establishment  was  the  collec- 
tion of  convents  and  cells,  the  many  laura,  of  Mount 
Athos.  This  mountain,  rising  to  a  peak  of  white  marble 
6,350  feet  above  the  sea,  is  a  conspicuous  landmark  visible 
from  the  plain  of  Troy  and  the  slopes  of  Olympus.  It 
gives  its  name  to  the  peninsular  in  the  vEgean  Sea  of 
which  it  is  the  southernmost  point ;  but  it  is  known  in  the 


LIFE    AND    LETTERS    IN    THE    BYZANTINE    CHURCH    287 

East  as  The  Holy  Mountain  ^  on  account  of  its  collection  of 
religious  houses.  Curzon  counted  935  places  of  worship,  in- 
cluding churches,  chapels,  and  oratories,  every  large  convent 
containing  from  six  to  twenty  chapels,  the  walls  of  which 
are  covered  from  top  to  bottom  with  frescoes.^  The  family 
of  the  Comneni  (a.d.  1058-1204)  bestowed  special  privi- 
leges on  the  monks  of  Mount  Athos.  Persecuted  and 
pillaged  under  the  Latin  dominance,  they  appealed  to  Pope 
Innocent  ITI.  for  protection  and  were  favourably  regarded 
by  him.  With  the  recovery  of  Constantinople  by  the 
Palseologi  their  prosperity  returned.  Several  emperors 
retired  here  from  the  cares  of  the  world.  The  shrines 
richly  decorated  with  goldsmith  work  of  a  high  order,  the 
libraries  with  their  fine  illuminated  manuscripts,  the 
splendid  frescoes,  reckoned  among  the  finest  specimens  of 
Byzantine  art,  and  the  natural  advantages  of  its  retreats 
among  rocks  and  ravines  and  woody  slopes,  with  glimpses 
out  to  the  sunny  sea,  combined  to  render  Mount  Athos  the 
choicest  spot  in  Eastern  Christendom.  The  monks  were 
wise  in  making  timely  submission  to  the  Turks,  with  the 
result  that,  though  they  had  suffered  from  earlier  Saracen 
raids  and  though  they  had  been  very  cruelly  treated  by 
their  fellow-Christians  from  the  West,  when  Constantinople 
was  taken  by  Mohammed  and  the  rest  of  the  Eastern 
Church  came  under  the  Turkish  yoke,  Mount  Athos  was 
allowed  virtual  independence  subject  to  a  tribute — a  unique 
privilege  which  it  has  maintained  down  to  the  present 
day. 

But  it  is  neither  its  lovely  situation,  its  size,  its 
numerous  population  of  monks,  its  many  sacred  buildings, 
its  treasures  of  art  and  literature,  nor  its  home  rule  that 
have  given  Mount  Athos  its  high  honour  in  the  Greek 
Church.  That  is  due  to  the  renowned  sanctity  of  its 
monks,  and  especially  to  one  peculiar  characteristic  which 
may  be  deemed  either  a  sign  of  the  highest  spirituality 
or  a  mark  of  the  grossest,  most  ignorant  superstition, 
lutlueuced  by  the  uiysticism  of   tlie   pseudo-Dionysius,  and 

^'"Ayiov  opos.  ^  Mmiasteries  of  the  Levant,  p.  18. 


288  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

following  the  exauiplo  of  Simeon,  an  abbot  of  a  Con- 
Klautiuople  monastery,  the  monk  of  Mount  Athos  practised 
the  self-hypnotism  of  an  Indian  fakir.  Sitting  in  a  corner 
of  his  cell,  pressing  his  chin  firmly  into  his  breast,  fixing 
his  eyes  on  his  navel,  and  holding  his  breath  as  long  as 
possible,  till  his  vision  became  dim,  the  devotee  passed 
through  a  condition  of  profound  depression  of  spirit  into 
an  ecstasy  in  which  he  saw  himself  surrounded  by  a  halo 
of  light,  the  light  of  God  that  shone  around  Christ  at  the 
Transfiguration.  A  rapture  of  what  he  took  to  be  un- 
earthly joy  seized  him,  and  he  felt  himself  brought  into 
the  very  presence  of  God  by  his  experience  of  the  beatific 
vision.  His  cell,  his  monastery,  his  companion  monks,  the 
world,  his  own  personality,  vanished  from  his  conscious- 
ness, and  he  sat  enthralled,  without  thought,  or  wish, 
or  movement,  entirely  occupied  with  his  supernatural 
experience. 

The  quietness  and  passivity,  the  entire  emptying  of  the 
mind  of  all  thought,  and  the  exclusion  of  all  sensations,  which 
were  the  condition  of  the  trance,  led  those  who  indulged 
in  it  to  be  called  "  Hesychasts."  ^  Accordingly  the  con- 
troversy to  which  they  gave  rise  has  been  designated  the 
Hesychast  controversy.  This  was  originated  by  Barlaam, 
who  had  been  the  ambassador  of  Andronicus  ill.  to  the 
pope  at  Avignon  on  the  question  of  the  reunion  of  the 
Churches.  No  sooner  was  this  man  back  at  Constantinople 
than  he  accused  the  monks  of  Mount  Athos  of  the  heresy 
of  Ditheism — scornfully  describing  them  as  "  navel  souls."  ^ 
Gregory  Palamas,  afterwards  archbishop  of  Thessalonica, 
defended  them.  For  doing  so  he  was  included  in  Barlaam's 
accusations.  A  council  was  held  on  the  subject  at  Con- 
stantinople in  the  year  1341,  when  the  unpopularity  of 
I'arlaam's  negotiation  for  the  union  came  to  the  aid  of 
the  Mount  Athos  monks.  The  council  gave  its  sanction 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  uncreated  light,  connecting  it  with 
a  Divine  energy,^  which  was  to  be  distinguished  from  the 
essence  *  of  God.     The  accuser  would  have  been  condemned 

^  ijffvx'i-i^oi'Tes.  -  d/jL^aXdrpvxoi.  *  ivipyeia.  *  oiiffia. 


LIFE    AND    LETTERS    IN    THE    BYZANTINE    CHURCH    289 

if  be  had  not  recanted,  after  which  he  withdrew  to  Italy 
and  joined  the  Latin  Church.  But  this  did  not  end  the 
controversy,  which  was  taken  up  by  Barlaam's  admirer 
Gregory  Acnidynus  and  Nicephorus  the  historian.  Two 
more  synods  were  held  on  the  subject — the  last  in  a.d. 
1351,  and  these  both  followed  the  example  of  the  earlier 
synod  and  declared  in  favour  of  the  monks.  Thus  the 
idea  of  the  uncreated  light  was  repeatedly  pronounced  to 
be  orthodox  by  the  Greek  Church. 

It  is  difficult  for  a  Western,  and  especially  an  Anglo- 
Saxon  Protestant,  mind  not  to  feel  contempt  and  disgust 
for  what  appears  to  be  a  gross  and  degrading  superstition. 
And  yet  when  we  remember  the  trances  of  the  prophets 
— especially  of  Ezekiel — and  take  note  of  the  curious 
phenomena  brought  to  light  by  recent  experimental  psy- 
chology, we  may  be  led  to  suspend  our  judgment  and 
allow  the  possibility  that  to  some,  if  not  all,  who  went 
through  the  abnormal  experience,  it  may  have  been  the 
condition  of  realising  genuine  spiritual  communion,  by 
means  of  its  complete  mastery  of  the  distractions  that 
come  from  the  world  of  sense.  Therefore,  although  itself 
apparently  so  completely  materialistic,  after  all  it  may 
not  have  been  so  very  alien  to  that  internal  light  preached 
by  George  Fox,  which  his  followers  regard  as  the  secret  and 
source  of  their  deepest  religious  life. 

When  we  turn  from  the  monks  to  the  main  body  of 
the  Church,  and  ask.  What  was  its  religious  and  moral  con- 
dition during  these  later  centuries  of  the  Byzantine  era  ? 
we  are  faced  with  a  tantalising  question  which  it  is  always 
difficult  to  answer.  For  most  historians  confine  their 
attention  to  large  movements  and  prominent  personages. 
Suetonius's  gossip  of  court  scandal  at  Eome  under  the 
Caesars  does  not  give  us  any  idea  of  the  habits  of  the 
farmers  on  the  plains  of  Italy,  nor  does  Juvenal's  satire 
on  the  fashionable  society  of  his  day  teach  us  anything 
about  the  behaviour  of  the  respectable  citizens  of  the 
country  towns.  Still  less  do  the  Byzantine  chroniclers 
throw  Hght  on  the  conduct  and  character  of  the  subjects 
19 


200  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

ruled  l)y  the  Comneni  and  the  Talteologi.  Nevertheless, 
now  and  then  we  have  hints  of  the  existence  of  a  public 
conscience  reflecting  the  private  morals  of  the  people. 
Finlay  repeatedly  asserts  his  opinion  that  a  high  standard 
of  morality  was  maintained  in  the  Greek  Empire  at  this 
time,  and  that  morally  as  well  as  intellectually  the  Eastern 
Ohurcli  was  now  much  superior  to  the  Western.  We  have 
seen  that  these  were  by  no  means  dark  ages  in  regard 
to  culture,  scholarship,  and  art.  They  were  centuries  of 
luxurious  life  and  refinement,  contrasting  strongly  with 
the  ignorant  barbarism  of  the  barons  who  conducted  the 
Crusades.  The  disapproval  of  second  marriages  and  the 
grave  condemnation  of  third  marriages  indicate  some  strict- 
ness in  the  public  conscience  which  a  fortiori  would  repro- 
bate more  serious  offences  in  the  relation  of  the  sexes.  But 
even  Finlay  admits  the  degradation  of  morals  in  the  eleventh 
century  under  the  unscrupulous  Empress  Zoe.  The  patri- 
arch Alexius  declined  to  celebrate  the  third  marriage  of 
this  empress,  although  he  had  performed  the  ceremony 
when  she  married  her  second  husband — a  court  servant 
well  known  to  be  her  accepted  lover — the  very  night 
of  the  death  of  her  first  husband.  The  third  husband 
was  the  dissolute  Constantine  ix.,  who  had  had  two  wives. 
Yet  the  patriarch  crowned  the  new  emperor  with  the  usual 
Church  ceremonies  the  day  after  his  marriage. 

In  reading  the  history  of  these  centuries,  we  are 
horrified  at  the  frequent  cases  of  mutilation  of  their  rivals 
and  victims  perpetrated  by  the  emperors.  Blinding  was  quite 
the  rule  when  a  dangerous  person  was  so  unfortunate  as  to 
fall  into  the  hands  of  his  enemy.  A  young  prince  would 
be  suddenly  torn  away  from  all  the  splendour  and  luxury 
of  the  court,  and  flung  into  a  dungeon,  there  to  languish 
for  decades.  The  operation  of  blinding  was  carried  out 
with  cold-blooded,  scientific  skill.  It  was  deemed  an  act 
of  humanity  and  refinement  when,  in  place  of  the  brutal 
act  of  gouging  out  the  eyes,  a  copper  globe  was  held  in 
front  of  them  reflecting  and  concentrating  the  sun's  rays 
so  as   to  ruin    the   siglit  withou<^.  actually  destroying  the 


LIFE    AND    LETTERS    IN    THE    BYZANTINE    CHURCH    291 

organs  themselves.  This  shows  that  the  purpose  of  tlie 
cruel  punishment  was  not  mere  torture  or  the  savage 
revenge  of  mutilation  for  its  own  sake.  "  Perhaps  we 
should  say  that  the  precise  purpose  of  this  common  ex- 
pedient of  blinding  was  not  so  much  to  incapacitate  the 
victim  physically,  as  to  render  it  improbable  that  people 
should  wish  to  restore  him  to  a  position  of  power,  that  is 
to  say,  to  incapacitate  him  in  the  eyes  of  the  public."  ^  It 
is  true  that  the  blind  Dandolo  was  the  leader  of  the  Latin 
expedition  against  Constantinople  ;  but  he  was  a  man  of 
known  ability  and  trusted  integrity,  loyal  to  Venice,  with 
none  of  the  self-seeking  that  actuated  most  of  the  barons. 

1  A  suggestion  made  by  Prof.  Gwatkin  in  conversation  with  the  present 
writer. 


PART   II 

THE    SEPARATE    CHURCHES 


The  idea  of  a  catholicity  so  wide  and  generous,  or,  as  some 
would  prefer  to  regard  it,  a  comprehensiveness  so  lax  and 
latitudinarian,  as  to  contain  a  number  of  churches  differing 
in  doctrine,  discipline,  and  ritual,  which  many  people 
cherish  in  the  present  day,  was  scarcely  conceived  before 
modern  times  ;  it  was  not  contemplated  by  any  of  the 
ancient  churches,  each  of  which  anathematised  all  Christians 
outside  its  pale.  Justin  Martyr's  application  of  the  Stoic 
doctrine  of  the  Logos  spermaticos  to  Christianity  might  have 
introduced  an  anticipation  of  such  an  idea,  and  the  large 
liberalism  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  might  even  have  wel- 
comed it,  had  it  appeared  above  the  horizon.  But  Cyprian's 
close  Catholicism  was  much  more  to  the  mind  of  the  patristic 
Church,  and  the  mediaeval  Church  had  no  wider  outlook. 

In  point  of  fact,  however,  there  was  a  division  of 
Christendom  into  separate  churches  quite  early,  and  that 
division  has  never  been  healed.  The  causes  of  it  were 
twofold — partly  racial  and  political,  and  partly  doctrinal 
and  polemical.  The  spread  of  Christianity  beyond  the 
confines  of  the  Eoman  Empire  led  to  the  establishment  of 
churches  in  foreign  kingdoms.  At  first  these  churches 
were  regarded  as  integral  parts  of  the  one  Catliolic  Church, 
and  their  bishops  had  a  right  to  attend  oecumenical  councils. 
But  several  influences  tended  to  cut  them  off.  The  mere 
fact  of  distance,  difficulties  of  travel,  and  troubles  in  cross- 
ing the  frontiers- — especially  in  times  of  war — -tended  more 
and  more  to  separate  them.  Then  in  their  isolation  they 
developed  their  several  types  of  racial  individuality,  together 

292 


THE  SEPARATE    CHURCHES  293 

with  a  growing  antipathy  to  the  habits  of  churches  of 
other  races.  The  adoption  of  Christianity  by  Constantine, 
followed  by  the  close  alliance  of  Church  and  State,  or 
rather  dominance  of  the  Church  by  the  State,  had  as  its 
natural  consequence  a  tendency  to  limit  the  Church 
which  deemed  itself  Catholic  to  the  confines  of  the  Roman 
Empire.  By  an  inevitable  reaction  the  patriotism  of  local 
churches  in  other  countries  would  tend  to  develop  their 
individuality.  This  process  was  hindered  by  persecution, 
which  led  foreign  Christians  ill-treated  by  their  own 
government  to  look  to  the  friendly  Eoman  Empire  for 
protection.     Still,  it  could  not  be  ultimately  frustrated. 

The  second  cause  of  separation — the  doctrinal  and 
polemical — was  much  more  thorough  and  effectual.  As 
early  as  the  second  century  there  had  been  heretical  bodies, 
such  as  the  Montanists  and  the  Marcionites,  existing  as 
regularly  organised  churches  ;  and  a  little  later  orthodox 
but  schismatic  communions,  such  as  the  Novatians  and 
the  Donatists,  each  regarding  itself  as  the  one  true 
Church.  The  Christological  controversies  had  more  serious 
and  permanent  consequences,  because  here  national  and 
racial  influences  combined  with  the  doctrinal  to  aggravate 
and  perpetuate  the  severance.  In  this  way  Monophysites 
became  Coptic  and  Syrian  Churches,  and  Nestorians  shaped 
into  Churches  of  Persia,  Chaldsea,  and  other  Eastern  parts. 
The  Mohammedan  conquests  tended  to  confirm  these  divi- 
sions. They  made  communication  between  the  Christians 
within  their  dominions  and  the  Church  of  the  empire 
difficult  and  precarious.  But  that  was  not  all.  Under  the 
tolerant  caliphs  the  territory  of  Islam  became  a  harbour  of 
refuge  for  Christians  angrily  denounced  and  driven  from 
pillar  to  post  by  the  holy  orthodox  Church  of  the  empire. 
The  scornful  Arab  made  no  difference  between  the  various 
schools  of  "  infidels  "  whom  he  tolerated.  Thus  churches 
excommunicated  as  heretical  by  the  Greek  and  Eoman 
authorities  remained  in  safety  out  of  the  clutches  of  the 
tyrannical  emperors  and  ecclesiastics,  who  would  have 
harried  them  if  they  had  had  a  chance  to  do  so.     Mean- 


294  THE    (JREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

while,  persecution,  whether  actual  or  only  held  over  as  a 
threat,  became  the  most  effectual  barrier  to  reunion. 

We  have  had  abundant  opportunities  of  observing  how 
ecclesiastical,  political,  and  doctrinal  causes  led  to  the  total 
and  final  severance  of  the  two  great  sections  of  the  original 
Catholic  Church.  These  we  have  seen  in  the  clash  of  the 
rival  claims  of  Eome  and  Constantinople  ;  in  the  assump- 
tion of  universal  headship  of  the  Church  by  the  papacy, 
denied  and  repudiated  in  the  East;  in  the  crowning 
of  Charles  the  Great  by  Leo  iii.,  and  the  consequent 
severance  of  the  Latin  Church  from  the  remnant  of  the 
Eoman  Empire  which  was  identified  with  the  Eastern 
Church ;  and  lastly,  in  bitterly  contested  doctrinal  differ- 
ences, especially  that  connected  with  the  Filioque  clause 
added  by  the  Western  theologians  to  the  Nicene  Creed,  and 
the  miserable  quarrel  over  the  question  of  the  use  of 
unleavened  bread  in  the  communion,  which  seemed  to 
outweigh  all  other  occasions  of  conflict  in  the  minds  of  the 
people  of  Constantinople. 

Thus  we  have  reached  the  stage  when  it  will  be  no 
longer  possible  to  carry  on  one  continuous  story  of  Church 
history.  It  will  now  be  necessary  to  trace  the  history  of 
each  of  the  separate  churches.  In  order  to  do  this 
effectually  we  must  go  back  to  their  origins,  in  the  cases 
where  these  origins  have  not  been  considered  already,  and 
study  them  along  the  lines  of  their  own  distinctive  courses 
of  development. 


DIVISION    I 

EAELY   CHEISTIANITY  OUTSIDE   THE  EMPIEE 

(a)  Eiisebius  ;    Socrates  ;    Sozomen  ;    Theodoret ;    Philostorgius  ; 

Aphraates,  Homilies  ;  Auxentius  ;  Jornandis,  Roma  et  Getica 

(edited  by  Mommsen),  1882. 
(6)  Harnack,  Expansion  of  Christianity,  Book  iv.  chap.  iii.  ;  Neale, 

Patriarchate  of  Antioch,  pp.   40,  74-78,   114-133,    146-150  ; 

Duchesne,  Les  Missions  Chretiens  au  sud  de  I'empire  Romain, 

1896  ;   C.  A.  Scott,   Uljilas,  the   Apostle   of  the  Goths,  1885  ; 

Bessell,  Ueber  das  Leben  des  Ulfilas,  etc.,  1860. 

Before  proceeding  to  sketch  in  brief  outline  the  continuous 

story  of  the  various  Eastern  Churches  down  the  ages  till 

our  own  day,  it  may  be  well  to  revert  to  the  earliest  period 

of  the  spread  of  Christianity  in  the  outer  world,  and  gather 

up  the  chief  events  in  connection  with  the  origin  and  growth 

of  primitive  churches  beyond  the  confines  of  the  Eoman 

Empire.     Much  of  this  is  shrouded  in  the  mists  of  legend ; 

but   even   that   fact  comes  into  history  because  the  mere 

existence  of  the  legends  is  significant,  as  an  indication  of 

the  condition  of  the  contemporary  districts  to  which  they 

refer.     If  we  come  upon  the  story  of  the  conversion  of  any 

place,  we  may  be  sure  that  Christianity  was  well  established 

there  at  least  by  the   time  when   that  story  was  afloat, 

however  fantastic  it  may  be  in  itself.      While  we  cannot 

accept  the  alleged  correspondence  between  Jesus  Christ  and 

King  Abgar  recorded  by  Eusebius,^  or  place  any  reliance  on 

his  account  of  the  labours  of  Thomas  and  Thaddaeus,  the 

flourishing  condition  of  Christianity  in  Edessa  in  the  second 

century,  when  Tatian  produced  his  Harmony  for  the  use  of 

1  Mist.  Ecd.  i.  13. 
296 


29G  THE   GREEK   AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

the  Church  in  that  Syrian  metropolis,  points  to  a  very 
early  extension  of  Christianity  in  the  East.  Barsedanes 
the  Gnostic,  whom  Hippolytus  called  an  "  Armenian,"  ^ 
came  from  this  place,  which  became  an  important  centre 
not  only  for  Syrian  Christianity,  but  for  missionary  activity 
and  the  spread  of  the  gospel  into  Persia  and  Armenia 
The  large  province  known  as  Armenia  Magna — east  of 
Armenia  Minor — which  had  been  included  in  the  Koman 
Empire  when  at  its  greatest  extent,  was  lost  to  the  empire 
during  our  period ;  and  therefore  its  Christian  inhabitants 
were  more  or  less  cut  off  from  their  brethren  in  the  main 
body  of  the  Church,  while  they  were  subjects  of  Parthian, 
Persian,  or  Saracen  rulers.  This  territory  had  been  recog- 
nised as  a  Christian  country  as  early  as  the  fourth  century .2 
It  is  Origen  who  tells  us  that  Thomas  "received 
Parthia  as  his  allotted  region,"  and  that  "  Andrew  received 
Scythia,"  ^  a  statement  which  implies  that  the  extension  of 
Christianity  into  these  two  districts,  the  one  directly  east 
of  Syria,  the  other  consisting  of  little  known  regions 
indefinitely  located  at  the  north  of  the  Euxine,  was  at  least 
some  time  earlier  than  the  third  century,  or  no  such  tradi- 
tions could  have  been  then  current.  That  points  to  a 
second  century  extension  of  Christianity  beyond  the  con- 
fines of  the  empire  in  two  directions.  Then  we  have  the 
famous  journey  of  Pantsenus,  who  resigned  his  professorial 
chair  and  the  cultured  society  of  Alexandria  about  A.D.  180 
to  go  as  a  missionary  to  some  far-off  land  known  as  "  India," 
probably  South  Arabia,  which  was  never  conquered  by  the 
Eomans,  or,  as  Harnack  suggests,  "  even  tlie  Axumitric 
kingdom,"  *  i.e.  Abyssinia.  There,  as  it  was  reported,^  he 
already  found  a  Christian  Church,  the  origin  of  which  was 
attributed  to  Bartholomew,  using  a  Hebrew  version  of 
St.   Matthew,   that  is    to  say,  the  "  Gospel    according   to 

'  Jie/icla.  vii.  19.  ^  See  Sozoiiieu,  ii.  8. 

^  Eusfbius,  Hid.  Eccl.  iii.  1. 

*  Ibid.    V.    10  ;   see    Harnack,  Expansion  of  Christianity,   Eng.   trans., 
vol.  ii.  p.  299. 

*  Observe  Eusebius's  cautious  itlirase,  "  He  is  said  to  have  found  there," 
etc.,  Hist.  Eccl.  V.  10. 


EARLY    CHRISTIANITY    OUTSIDE   THE    EMPIRE     297 

the  Hebrews."  This  then  would  be  a  Jewish  Christian 
Church.  The  "  Acts  of  Thomas  "  shows  that  Christianity  had 
reached  the  north-western  part  of  India  itself,  our  modern 
India,  as  early  as  the  third  century.  By  the  time  of  the 
council  of  Nicsea  there  were  churches  in  Arabia  east  of  the 
Dead  Sea,  a  region  over  which  the  empire  had  very  little 
control.  The  gospel  was  carried  up  the  Nile  to  the  towns  and 
villages  of  Egypt  at  an  early  time,  and  thence  it  penetrated 
the  Soudan — '"Ethiopia,"  the  south  country  beyond  Philae — 
in  the  fourth  century,  till  perhaps  it  reached  the  mission 
in  Abyssinia,  which  had  entered  Africa  from  the  east. 

When  we  pass  over  to  the  fourth  century  the  accounts 
of  foreign  missions  and  the  experiences  of  the  churches  in 
the  outlying  regions  round  about  the  empire  become  more 
definite  and  explicit.  The  Armenian  Church,  with  the 
itory  of  its  famous  apostle  Gregory  the  Illuminator  ;  the 
Ethiopian  and  Abyssinian  Church,  the  origin  of  which  is 
traced  to  the  labours  of  two  shipwrecked  young  travellers, 
Frumentius  and  ^desius  ;  the  Georgian  Church,  springing 
from  the  influence  of  a  woman — the  Armenian  slave  girl 
Nunia  ;  the  Syrian  Church  in  India,  which  claims  St.  Thomas 
as  its  founder — all  of  them  independent  churches  in  regions 
outside  the  Eoman  Empire — will  claim  our  attention  later 
on  ;  because  as  they  have  remained  in  independent  existence 
on  to  our  own  day  we  shall  want  to  know  something  about 
the  course  of  their  history  right  down  the  centuries.  But 
incidents  in  connection  with  two  outlying  communities 
of  Christians  lead  the  interest  connected  with  them  to 
be  concentrated  for  us  in  the  early  period,  and  therefore 
seem  to  demand  our  consideration  at  once.  These  incidents 
are  the  persecution  of  the  Persian  Christians  and  the 
mission  of  Ulfilas  among  the  Goths. 

1.  The  origin  of  Christianity  in  Persia  is  hidden  in 
obscurity ;  but,  as  we  have  seen,  in  all  probability  it  was 
an  oftshoot  of  the  activity  of  the  Syrian  Church  at  Edessa, 
which  in  turn  must  be  traced  back  to  Antioch,  the  earliest 
great  missionary  church.  In  the  district  of  Garamsea,  east 
of  the  Tigris,  and    south-east  of    Mosul,  there  appear  to 


298  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

liave  been  Christians  as  early  as  A.D  170.^     This  was  then 
part  of  the  Parthian  Empire,  made  famous  in  history  by 
the  brilliant  career  of  the  great  Queen  Zenobia,  which  was 
superseded    by    the   new   Persian   Empire,   known   as   the 
Sassanid  kingdom,  in  the  year  227.     Zenobia  had  shown 
Christian  sympathies — of  a  sort.      When  in  possession  of 
Antioch  she  had  petted  and  protected  the  gorgeous  heretic 
Paul  of  Samosata;  but  then  he  had  been  condemned  by 
the    Christians    of     the    Eoman    Empire,    through    whom 
perhaps  she  thought  to  spite  Eome.     By  protecting  and 
patronising  heretical  Christians  she  gained  the  enthusiastic 
support  of  one  section  of  her  subjects.      It  was  the  very 
opposite  with  the  Persians  when  they  founded  an  empire 
on  the  ruins  of  Zenobia's  splendid  dominion.     They  were 
equally  inimical  to  Eome ;  but  by  this  time  Paul  and  his 
faction  had  passed  away.     Besides,  the  Persian  Empirt  did 
not    include    Syria.       The    Christians   in    Persia    were    in 
communion  with   their   brethren   in   the   Eoman    Empire. 
This  fact  roused  suspicion  of  disloyalty  in  the  minds  of 
their  masters.     It  was  feared  that  they  were  disaffected 
subjects,  spies  in  communication  with  the  terrible  enemy 
in  the  West,  perhaps  conspirators  plotting  for  the  downfall 
of  the  Sassanid  throne.      The  adoption  of  Christianity  by 
Constantine  and  the  growing  combination  of  Church  and 
State  that  followed,  immensely  aggravated  this  suspicion. 
In  the  Eoman  Empire  the  Church  was  now  treated  as  a 
State  department.     Therefore,  for  subjects  of  Persia  to  be 
communicating  with  the  Church  at  Constantinople  would 
appear  to  be  much  the  same  as  for  English  Eoman  Catholics 
in  the  times  of  Elizabeth  and  the  Stuarts  to  be  in  com- 
munication  with    fellow-Eomanists    in  Spain  and  France. 
Whatever  may  have  been  their  real  sentiments  before  the 
persecution  broke  out,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  when  it 
was  raging  the  Persian  Christians  would  look  with  longing 
eyes  to  their  brethren  safely  sheltered  within  the  Eoman 
Empire, 

'  Mueller,  Hist,  of  Christian  Church,  Eng.  trans.,  vol.  i.  p.  104,  gives 
authorities  for  this  statement,  drawn  from  the  Syrian  Acts  of  Persian  martyrs. 


EARLY    CHRISTIANITY    OUTSIDE    THE    EMPIRE    299 

There  was  another  factor  in  this  persecution  which 
added  fuel  to  the  fire,  or  which  perhaps  had  kindled  the 
fire  at  the  first.  This  was  the  antagonism  of  the  Magi. 
That  the  leaders  of  so  enlightened  a  religion  as  that  of 
Persia  should  have  stirred  up  a  persecution  of  the  Christians 
is  a  plain  proof  of  their  vitality  and  vigour.  In  earlier 
days  a  similar  influence  had  roused  violent  opposition  to 
Christianity  in  the  Roman  Empire.  Thus  the  Valerian 
persecution  was  instigated  by  a  famous  magician,  Macrianus. 
We  must  not  confound  the  ancient  order  of  Persian  Magi 
with  the  vulgar  charlatans  who  professed  magic  in  the 
Western  world.  And  yet  the  science  of  the  Magi  itself 
was  fast  degenerating  into  magic,  a  practice  against  which 
the  Church  waged  deadly  war,  accusing  it  of  alliance 
with  the  deviL 

The  great  Persian  persecution  of  the  Christians  broke 
out  under  Sapor,  whose  reign  was  extended  to  the  extra- 
ordinary length  of  seventy  years.  His  father  had  died 
before  his  birth,  and  since  the  crown  was  then  placed  on 
the  spot  that  was  supposed  to  conceal  the  future  heir,  the 
years  of  his  reign  are  reckoned  from  a  time  earlier  than 
his  appearance  in  the  world.  The  Magi  began  to  work  on 
Sapor's  mind  when  he  was  a  youth,  and  there  were  many 
violent  deaths  of  Christians  in  consequence  during  the 
early  part  of  his  reign.  The  first  of  them  are  dated  two 
years  after  the  council  of  Nicsea  (a.d.  327).  But  these 
cases  are  scarcely  noticed  in  comparison  with  the  army  of 
martyrs  that  fell  in  Sapor's  thirtieth  year  (a.d.  343)  and 
during  the  succeeding  thirty- five  years,  over  the  whole  of 
which  the  persecution  was  spread  intermittently.  The 
diptychs  of  the  Persian  Church  celebrate  the  names  of 
16,000  clergy,  monks,  and  nuns.  We  have  no  means  of 
estimating  the  number  of  the  laity  who  suffered.  At  first 
there  were  many  apostasies.  But  the  wonder  of  the 
persecution  is  that  as  this  proceeded  down  its  path  of 
blood  through  many  years,  instead  of  wearing  out  the 
patience  of  the  Church,  it  welded  her  metal  to  the  temper 
of  fine  steel.     According  to  the  confession  of  the  acts  of 


300  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

the  martyrs  the  religious  character  of  the  Christians  was 
low  at  first,  but  as  in  the  case  of  the  two  great  Eoman 
persecutions — the  Dccian  and  the  Diocletian — the  fires  of 
tribulation  purged  tlie  Church. 

The  immediate  motive  of  this  especially  severe  per- 
secution at  the  exact  time  wlien  it  broke  out  appears  to 
have  been  political.  The  Magi  had  been  urging  the  king 
to  suppress  their  rivals  all  along.  But  now  Sapor  saw  the 
Christian  bishop  James  at  Nisibis  keeping  that  city  firm 
in  its  allegiance  to  the  Eoman  Emperor  Constantius,  so 
that  it  successfully  withstood  two  sieges  by  the  Persians. 
This  was  a  clear  case  of  action  on  the  part  of  the  Church  in 
favour  of  Eome  against  Persia,  although  not  within  his  own 
territory.  It  was  enough  to  embitter  him  against  those  of 
James's  friends  and  co-religionists  whom  he  had  in  his  power. 

The  persecution  began  with  a  heavy  capitation  tax  on 
the  Christians.  Their  bishop  Symeon  proved  himself  to 
be  a  very  haughty  passive-resister.  "  Christ,"  he  answered, 
"  who  had  freed  His  Church  by  His  death  would  not 
permit  His  people  to  bow  to  such  a  yoke."  Like  the 
young  officer  Marcellus  who  had  spoken  to  his  superiors 
scornfully  about  "  your  emperors,"  during  the  Diocletian 
persecution,  because  his  sovereign  was  Christ,  and  like  the 
"  fifth  monarchy  men  "  in  the  seventeenth  century,  Symeon 
seemed  to  think  that  his  status  as  a  Christian  involved 
escape  from  the  authority  of  the  civil  government ;  or  if 
he  did  not  go  so  far  as  that,  he  took  it  as  a  full  justification 
for  refusing  to  pay  an  iniquitous  tax.  He  was  arrested, 
tried,  urged  in  vain  to  worship  the  sun,  and  condemned 
to  perish  in  torture.  At  tlie  same  time  other  martyrs 
were  l)eheaded.  The  very  day  of  Symeon's  martyrdom  a 
fresh  and  more  severe  edict  was  issued  against  the  Christians. 
It  only  stimulated  the  heroism  of  the  martyrs.  Sapor's 
queen  being  attacked  by  an  unknown  disease,  the  Jewish 
physician  who  attended  her  attributed  it  to  the  practice  of 
witchcraft  by  two  Christian  ladies  of  liigh  station.  They 
were  stri])ped,  tied  to  posts,  and  hacked  to  pieces,  and  then 
the   queen   was  led    through   the  yet    reeking  portions    of 


EARLY    CHRISTIANITY    OUTSIDE    THE    EMPIRE     301 

their  remains.  The  stories  of  the  persecution,  its  horrors 
and  its  heroism,  are  too  numerous  to  repeat.  A  glance 
over  them  reveals  the  fact  that  a  great  number  of  the 
martyrdoms  occurred  in  the  district  of  Adiabene,  which 
appears  to  have  been  almost  wholly  Christian.  But 
multitudes  fell  in  ail  the  provinces.  At  first  only  the 
clergy  were  aimed  at ;  nevertheless  the  persecution  was 
not  confined  to  the  official  leaders  of  the  Church. 

When  we  next  meet  with  Persian  Christians  we  find 
them  adopting  Nestorianism ;  and  the  later  fortunes  of 
Christianity  in  Persia  will  be  considered  in  the  division 
of  this  volume  dealing  with  the  Nestorians. 

2.  The  other  series  of  events  occurring  beyond  the 
borders  of  the  Eoman  Empire  during  the  earlier  period  of  our 
history  that  now  claims  our  attention  is  found  in  connection 
with  the  story  of  Ulfilas  and  the  conversion  of  the  Goths.^ 
These  people  of  our  own  Teutonic  stock,  whose  repeated 
invasions  were  among  the  most  serious  troubles  of  the 
Eoman  emperors,  first  meet  us  in  the  lands  north  of  the 
lower  Danube  during  the  third  century  of  the  Christian 
era.  Their  traditional  earlier  connection  with  Scandinavia 
has  not  been  verified ;  but  the  fact  that  in  the  restless 
migrations  of  their  teeming  populations  they  had  swept  east- 
ward from  the  ancient  forests  of  Germany,  and  thus  early 
begun  the  characteristic  colonising  habit  of  which  their  Eng- 
lish representatives,  the  Jutes,  gave  evidence,  is  the  probable 
explanation  of  their  appearance  in  Eastern  Europe,  wedged 
in  between  the  Sclavs  on  the  north  and  the  Greeks  on  the 
south.  Still  pressing  onward,  during  the  course  of  the 
fourth  century  they  poured  into  the  Koman  province  of 
Dacia  in  repeated  and  disastrous  raids,  the  first  of  which 
occurred  in  the  year  238,  ravaging  Moesia  in  the  reign 
of  Philip  the  Arabian,  and  later  defeating  the  Emperor 
Decius,  who  fell  while  fighting  them  (a.d.  251).'^  Thus 
indirectly  they  saved  the   Church   by  putting  an  end    to 

^  Formerly  but  erroneously  identified  with  the  Getae. 
2  Zosimus,  i.  19  ff. 


302  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

the  first  persecution  that  was  systematically  planned  by  a 
determined  emperor  to  effect  its  total  destruction.      During 
the  next  seventeen  years  they  devastated  Eastern  Europe 
and  Western  Asia  by  land  and  sea  as  far  as  Trebizond; 
but  at  length  they  were  defeated  and  driven  back  by  the 
Emperor  Claudius  (a.d.  269),  just  about  the  time  when  the 
elder  Theodosius  was  repulsing  the   Saxons  in  Britain.      A 
wise   compromise    was    now  agreed  upon.      The    Eomans 
ceded  the  province  of  Dacia,  north  of  the  Danube,  which 
Trajan  had  added  to  the  empire,  so  that  the  river  became 
the  boundary  between  Koman  and  Goth,  while  the  name 
Dacia  was  preserved  by  being  transferred  to  the  district 
south  of  the  Danube  (a.d.  274).      The  political  sagacity  of 
this  arrangement  was  seen  in  the  ensuing  peace  of  ninety 
years'  duration,  only  once  seriously  broken  by  an  incursion 
of  Alaric,  which  was  successfully  repelled  after  its  brief, 
brilliant  success.      Under  Ermanaric,  in  the  fourth  century, 
the  Goths  north  of  the  Danube  grew  into  a  great  power, 
conquering    the     Sclavs,    and,    according    to     their    own 
historian   Jornandis — who    is     not    altogether     reliable — 
extending  their  dominion  as  far  as  the  Baltic.^     Ermanaric 
was  only  a  kind  of  overlord,  for  the  Goths  had  no  kings, 
and    therefore  when   Socrates  ^  describes    a    civil    war  as 
a  contest  between  two  rivals — Athanaric  and  Frithigern — 
for  the  sovereignty,  we  must  understand  this  as  a  quarrel 
between  two  separate  chief  tains  *  for  the  place  of  primus 
inter  pares.^      But   the  important   fact   in  regard  to   the 
liistory  of  Christianity  among  the  Goths  is  that  these  two 
chieftains  followed  opposite  lines  of  policy  both  in  relation 
to  the  Eoman  Empire  and  with  reference  to  Christianity. 
The  close  neighbourhood  of  the  two  powers  led  to  inter- 
communication and  interaction.      Athanaric  took  the  side 
of  a  usurper  in  making  war  on  the  emperor,  but  afterwards 
came   to    terms    with   Valens.       Christianity   had  already 

^  Jornandis,  23.  *  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  33. 

'  Ammianus  calls  Athanaric  a  "judge,"  Hist,  xxvii.  5.  According 
to  Freeman,  he  would  be  the  equivalent  of  an  Anglo-Saxon  ealdorman  or 
heretoga.     See  Freeman's  article  "Goths"  in  Encycl.  Brit. 


EARLY    CHRISTIANITY    OUTSIDE    THE    EMPIRE    303 

penetrated  into  his  dominions,  and  he  liad  persecuted  the 
converts  severely.  On  the  other  hand,  Frithigern  had 
found  it  politic  to  cultivate  the  friendship  of  the  empire, 
and  therefore  to  be  himself  friendly  to  its  religion,  the  type 
of  which,  we  must  remember,  was  Arianism,  then  favoured 
by  the  government.^ 

The  actual  beginnings  of  Christianity  among  the  Goths 
cannot  be  traced.  A  twofold  process  was  at  work  leadinu- 
to  the  introduction  of  the  gospel  to  the  Teutonic  tribes 
beyond  the  Danube.  In  the  first  place,  Christian  captives 
carried  off  in  the  Gothic  raids  of  the  empire  brought  their 
religion  with  them ;  and,  inasmuch  as  every  genuine 
Christian  is  bound  to  be  a  missionary,  we  are  not  sur- 
prised to  learn  that  some  of  these  captives  made  the 
gospel  known  among  the  heathen  people  with  whom  their 
lot  was  now  cast.^  In  the  second  place,  Goths  served 
in  the  Eoman  army  and  there  came  under  Christian 
influences,  so  that  those  who  were  converted,  when  they 
went  back  to  their  own  country,  would  go  as  Christians 
ready  to  spread  the  new  faith  among  their  people.  To 
these  influences  we  must  add  that  of  fugitives  from  per- 
secution in  the  empire,  who  took  refuge  among  the  more 
liberal  "  barbarians." 

The  earliest  Gothic  colony  within  the  empire  appears 
to  have  established  itself  at  Crim — the  Crimea — long 
before  the  Arian  supremacy,  to  have  become  Christian  of 
the  Catholic  type,  and  to  have  remained  such  throughout. 
There  was  a  bishop  of  the  Goths  named  Theophilus  at  the 
council  of  Nictea  (a.d.  325).^  According  to  Philostorgius, 
raids  as  early  as  the  reigns  of  Valerian  and  Gallienus  had 
resulted  in  Christian  captives  planting  the  gospel  among 
the  Goths;  among  these  captives,  he  says,  were  the 
ancestors  of  Ulfilas.* 

^  Sozomen,  vi,  37  j  Socrates,  iv.  33.  *  Sozomen,  Hist.  Eccl.  ii.  6. 

*  Socrates,  ii.  41. 

*  Philostorgius,  ii.  5.  Athanasius,  writing  before  the  council  of  Nicaea, 
mentions  both  Scythians  and  Goths  among  barbarians  who  had  received  the 
gospel.     Cf.  Cyril,  Cat.  xvi.  22. 


804  THE   GREKK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

We  may  therefore  be  certain  that  this  famous  man 
was  not  the  first  to  introduce  Christianity  to  a  Teutonic 
race.  Nevertheless,  it  is  with  justice  that  Ulfilas  has 
been  described  as  "  the  Apostle  of  the  Goths,"  because  it 
was  owing  to  his  labours  that  a  great  part  of  the  nation 
was  won  over  to  the  faith  of  Christ.  The  discovery  of  a 
Gothic  account  of  his  life  by  one  of  his  own  disciples  has 
enabled  scholars  to  supplement  and  correct  the  prejudiced 
narratives  of  the  Greek  Church  historians  from  a  more 
authentic  source.^  There  are  reasons  for  doubting  Philo- 
storffius's  statement  that  Ulfilas  was  a  descendant  of  one  of 
the  Cappadocian  captives.^  His  name  is  thoroughly  Gothic, 
and  his  pupil  Auxentius  does  not  hint  at  a  foreign 
parentage.  He  was  born  among  the  Goths  in  the  year 
311.  We  cannot  test  the  statement  of  Socrates  that  he 
was  converted  by  Theophilus,  the  bishop  who  attended  the 
council  of  Nicsea.  If  that  were  correct,  he  would  have 
been  orthodox  at  first.  But  afterwards  he  was  identified 
with  one  of  the  schools  of  Arianism.  While  quite  young, 
probably  in  the  year  332,  when  he  was  twenty-one  years 
of  age,  he  was  sent  to  Constantinople,  either  as  an  envoy, 
or,  as  seems  more  likely  considering  his  youth,  as  a 
hostage.  Arianism  was  now  dominant  in  the  city,  and 
naturally  enough  Ulfilas  came  under  its  influence.  While 
at  Constantinople  he  learnt  Latin  and  Greek,  and  served 
in  the  minor  order  of  a  reader  in  the  Church,  probably 
working  in  the  city  as  an  evangelist  to  his  fellow-countrymen 

^  See  C.  Anderson  Scott,  Ulfilas,  the  Apostle  of  the  Goths,  a  book  which 
is  mainly  founded  on  a  Gothic  MS.  at  the  Louvre,  discovered  by  Waitz 
in  the  year  1840,  containinu;  the  life  of  Ulfilas  by  Auxentius,  one  of  his 
pupils,  and  Arian  bishop  of  Dorostorus  (Silistria). 

-  Prof.  Anderson  Scott  adduces  three  reasons — (1)  Philostorgius,  though 
himself  a  Cappadocian,  writing  forty  years  later,  was  less  likely  to  know 
the  origin  of  Ulfilas  than  people  at  Constantinople  [surely  a  doubtful  state- 
ment] ;  (2)  since  the  Ostrogoths  of  the  Crimea  were  the  Gothic  people 
who  made  raids  on  Cappadocia,  it  is  improbable  that  a  Cappadocian  captive 
would  be  found  among  Gotlis  of  the  Danube  ;  (3)  it  is  also  improbable 
that  young  descendants  in  the  third  generation  of  captive  from  the  empire 
Would  be  sent  to  represent  the  Goths  at  Constantinople  {Ulfilas,  etc.,  pp. 
50,  51). 


BARLY    CHRISTIANITY    OUTSIDE   THE   EMPIEE    305 

among  the  imperial  troops.  In  the  year  341  he  was 
ordained  as  a  missionary  by  the  Semi-Arian  party  and  sent 
back  to  his  own  country  to  evangelise  it.  This  fact  throws 
an  interesting  sidelight  on  the  period  of  fierce  controversy 
which  follows  the  council  of  Nicaea.  As  we  read  the 
Church  histories  we  are  in  danger  of  regarding  it  as  a 
time  when  religion  was  nothing  but  a  battleground  of 
angry  polemics  between  the  factions  into  which  the  Church 
was  broken  up.  But  this  mission  of  Ulfilas  is  a  sign  that 
something  better  was  to  be  seen  in  it,  though  that  did  not 
make  so  much  noise.  It  is  interesting  also  to  observe 
that  the  missionary  zeal  was  found  among  the  Arians, 
whom  the  Nicene  party  were  for  ever  denouncing  and 
anathematising  as  impious  infidels. 

Ulfilas  was  thirty  years  of  age  when  he  set  out  on  his 
great  enterprise,  and  he  continued  in  it  for  forty  years  of 
arduous  toil,  amid  great  perils  and  persecutions.  He 
began  among  the  Visigoths  beyond  the  Danube,  where  he 
laboured  for  seven  years  with  great  success.  He  won  so 
many  converts  that  the  pagan  chief,  who  appears  to  have 
been  wrongly  identified  with  Athanaric,  was  roused  to 
anger  and  commenced  a  persecution  of  his  Christian 
people.  Ulfilas  then  obtained  permission  from  Constantius 
to  retire  with  his  converts  across  the  Danube  into  Moesia, 
within  the  confines  of  the  empire,  settling  near  the  foot 
of  the  mountain  range  of  Haemus.  In  the  year  360  he 
attended  a  council  at  Constantinople,  called  together  by 
the  Homoean  party.  It  was  the  creed  of  this  party  to 
which  he  gave  his  assent — a  creed,  it  will  be  remembered, 
devised  for  political  reasons,  in  order  to  retain  Arianism 
within  the  Church.  It  aimed  at  so  doing  by  putting  an 
end  to  controversy,  by  excluding  all  party  watchwords — 
Jiomoousios,  homoiousios,  and  the  rest,  and  affirming  a 
simple  likeness  between  the  First  and  Second  Persons  in 
the  Trinity. 

There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  Ulfilas  was  perfectly 
honest  in  the  theological  position  he  occupied.  As  an 
earnest  missionary,  more  concerned  with    practical   evau- 

20 


306  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

gelistic  work  than  with  theological  controveiy,  he  may 
have  heen  thankful  for  a  simple  form  of  (Christianity  that 
he  could  make  intelligible  to  his  rough  fellow-countrymen 
more  easily  than  one  which  was  involved  in  subtle  Greek 
metaphysics.  There  is  no  ground  for  the  malignant 
insinuation  of  orthodox  Church  writers,  that  Ulfilas  adopted 
Arianism  in  a  bargain  with  the  Emperor  Valens  when  seek- 
ing protection  from  the  persecution  of  the  pagan  Goths. 
He  states  in  his  will  that  he  had  always  held  the  same 
principles.^  The  probability  is  that  the  Goths  were  already 
Arians  of  the  mild,  non-metaphysical  type.  Arianism  was 
strong  in  Moesia  and  along  the  line  of  the  Danube,  and  the 
natural  explanation  of  the  facts  is  that  Ulfilas  and  his 
people  were  simply  carried  with  the  current  of  their  times 
and  became  Arian  without  ever  supposing  that  they  were 
adopting  a  specifically  heretical  position. 

The  result,  however,  was  curiously  complicated.  In 
the  first  place,  it  was  a  great  thing  for  Europe  that  when 
the  Goths  poured  over  Italy  and  even  captured  Eome  they 
came  as  a  Christian  people,  reverencing  and  sparing  the 
churches,  and  abstaining  from  those  barbarities  that 
accompanied  the  invasion  of  Britain  by  the  heathen 
Saxons.  But,  in  the  second  place,  many  of  these  simple 
Gothic  Christians  learned  to  their  surprise  that  they  were 
heretics,  and  that  only  when  their  efforts  towards  frater- 
nising with  their  fellow-Christians  in  the  orthodox  Church 
were  angrily  resented. 

Ulfilas  supplemented  his  direct  missionary  work  by 
his  writings ;  above  all,  by  his  translation  of  the  Bible  into 
the  Gothic  language.  For  this  purpose  he  had  to  create 
an  alphabet,  since  previously  the  art  of  writing  was  un- 
known among  the  Goths.  Thus  he  is  really  the  founder 
of  Teutonic  literature — that  great  literature  which  after- 
wards blossimied  out  in  Chaucer,  Luther,  Shakespeare, 
Goethe.  Ulfilasus  omitted  the  Book  of  Kings  from  his 
translation  because  of  their  warlike  character  —  lie 
considered     that     his     people     did     not     need    Scriptural 

'  Eyo  Ulphild.t  snnper  sic  credidi. 


EARLY    CHRISTIANITY    OUTSIDE   THE    EMPIRE    307 

encouragement  for  fighting,  being  only  too  ready  for  it 
already.^  Perhaps  this  is  the  first  instance  of  a  Bible 
expurgated  on  moral  grounds. 

Ulfilas's  translation  only  exists  in  fragments,  the  most 
important  of  which  is  the  Codex  Argenteus,  containing 
portions  of  the  Gospels.  This  manuscript  is  described  by 
Scrivener  as  "  the  most  precious  treasure  of  the  university 
of  Upsal."  ^  It  consists  of  quarto  leaves  of  purple  vellum, 
with  letters  in  gold  and  silver.  The  date  assigned  to  it  is 
the  fifth  or  early  sixth  century  ;  that  is  to  say,  only  about 
a  century  later  than  the  time  of  Ulfilas  himself.  Other 
copies  are  the  Codex  Carolinus  and  the  Ambrosian  fragments 
published  by  Mai.^  Ulfilas  went  to  Constantinople  in  the 
year  380,  and  there  he  died,  either  that  same  year,  or  the 
next  year — the  year  of  the  second  oecumenical  council, 
worn  out  with  his  heroic,  lifelong  toils  and  the  anxieties 
for  his  people,  which  crowded  upon  his  later  years.  He 
was  succeeded  by  Seleuas — a  man  accounted  "  well  fitted 
to  instruct  the  people  in  the  Church." 

The  subsequent  history  of  Gothic  Christianity  belongs 
to  Western  Christendom,  since  it  follows  the  migration  of 
the  Goths.  In  Thracia,  the  home  of  its  origin,  it  dis- 
appeared with  the  break-up  of  the  nation  in  the  year  395. 
But  it  became  most  important  in  the  Gothic  kingdom 
of  Theodoric,  which  saw  Arianism  re-established  for  a  time 
in  Italy  long  after  it  had  been  extinguished  in  the  Eoman 
Empu'e.  Under  the  influence  of  the  same  wave  of  emigra- 
tion, it  passed  into  Spain  and  across  the  Mediterranean  to 
Africa,  where  at  length  it  perished  together  with   Chris- 

^  Philostorgius,  ii.  5. 

2  Introd.  to  the  Criticism  of  the  Neio  Testament,  4th  edit.  vol.  ii.  p.  146. 

^  Since  Ulfilas  was  an  Arian,  the  question  arises.  Did  his  heresy  affect 
his  translation  of  the  Bible  ?  i'rof.  Scott  finds  a  faint  indication  of  such 
influence  in  the  crucial  test  of  the  text,  Phil.  ii.  6,  where  Ulfilas  has  the 
Gothic  word  galelko  as  his  rendering  of  the  Greek  I'cra,  although  this  word 
corresponds  to  the  Greek  S/^oios,  the  watchword  of  the  mild  Arians  whom  he 
represented.  For  the  rest,  his  version  has  no  suspicion  of  heresy.  We 
must  remember — (1)  that  the  Greek-speaking  Arians  claimed  the  Scriptures 
to  be  on  their  side  ;  and  (2)  that  Ulfilas  was  neither  an  extreme  nor  a  con- 
troversial Arian. 


308  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

tianity  itself.  The  lust  remnants  of  Gothic  Christianity 
in  Africa  disappeared  under  the  devastating  scourge  of  the 
Arab  invasion,  to  give  place  to  Islam  and  its  blight  upon 
civilisation.  Meanwhile,  at  its  old  home  in  the  East, 
another  race  and  another  type  of  Church  life  had  blotted  out 
all  signs  and  all  memories  of  Ulfilas's  Church,  its  victories 
and  its  martyrdoms. 


DIVISION    II 

THE  MODERN  GREEK  CHURCH 


CHAPTER   I 
CYRIL  LUCAR  AND  THE  REFORMATION 

(a)  Cyrilli  Lucaris,  Confessio ;  Smith,  Vit.  Gyr.  Lucar ;  Collectanea 

de  Cyrillo  Lucar io,  1707  ;  Palmer,  The  Eastern  Catholic  Com- 
munion, 1853,  and  The  Orthodox  and  the  No7i-Jurors,  1868. 

(b)  Neale,  Patriarchate  of  Alexandria  ;  Ranke,  The  Ottoman  Empire, 

Eng.  trans.,  1843  ;  Findlay,  Greece  under  Ottoman  a7id  Vene- 
tian Domination,  1856  ;  Kyriakos,  Geschichte  der  Orientalischen 
Kirchen  von  1453-1898,  Ger.  trans.,  1902, 

The  fall  of  Constantinople  was  quickly  followed  by  the 
subjugation  of  almost  all  the  remnants  of  the  Byzantine 
Empire,  Even  the  Venetians  and  the  Knights  of  St, 
John  were  swept  from  the  Levant  by  the  victorious  Turks. 
The  consequence  was  the  subjection  of  the  Greek  Church  to 
Mohammedan  despotism.  The  sultan  recognised  the  Church 
as  a  corporate  institution,  instituted  and  maintained  official 
relations  with  the  bishops,  and  issued  specific  regulations 
for  the  management  of  the  Christians.  The  forcible  con- 
version of  the  followers  either  of  Jesus  or  of  Moses,  regarded 
as  two  prophets  of  Islam,  was  forbidden  by  the  Koran. 
While  obstinate  idolaters  were  to  be  slain,  Jews  and  Chris- 
tians were  to  be  allowed  to  live  and  practise  their  religious 
rites,  though  not  to  proselytise.  But  both  were  treated 
with  contempt,  subjected  to  specific  exactions  and  disabili- 
ties,  and    often    liable   to   unchecked   abuse   and   outrage 


olO  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Christians  were  required  to  pay  a  capitation  tax  (called  the 
haratsh),  from  which  Mussulman  inhabitants  of  the  same 
provinces  were  exempt.  But  the  most  cruel  and  degrading 
burden  laid  upon  them  was  the  tribute  of  children  which 
went  to  maintain  the  famous  institution  of  the  janissaries.^ 
A  tithe  of  the  young  population,  one  boy  in  five,  was 
demanded  by  the  government.  Every  two  or  three  years 
government  officers  went  through  the  towns  and  villages 
selecting  the  healthiest  and  strongest  boys  to  be  trained  for 
service  as  soldiers  of  the  sultan.  They  were  taken  quite 
young,  and  carefully  educated  in  Mohammedanism.  The 
institution  was  a  unique  characteristic  of  the  Ottoman 
Empire.  It  was  originated  by  Orkhan,  about  the  year 
1329,  but  organised  much  more  thoroughly  by  his  son 
and  successor  Murad,  who  has  therefore  been  generally 
regarded  as  its  founder.  By  this  means  the  sultans  were 
able  to  maintain  a  strong  fighting  force  unattached  to  the 
pashas  and  unaffected  by  local  interests,  a  rigorously  disci- 
plined and  highly  trained  standing  army  absolutely  subject 
to  the  imperial  authority. 

This,  then,  was  the  secret  of  the  power  of  the  Ottoman 
Empire  when  at  its  zenith  it  boasted  of  ruling  three  conti- 
nents. At  the  time  of  the  fall  of  Constantinople  the 
number  of  janissaries  was  12,000  ;  under  Suleiman  the 
Legislator  it  rose  to  40,000.  But  in  later  times  these 
janissaries  themselves  became  a  menace  to  the  weakened 
central  authority,  exercising  their  power  for  their  common 
interests  like  the  Roman  armies  under  the  feebler  emperors. 
In  the  year  1566  they  obtained  from  Selim  n.  the  right  to 
make  recruits  of  their  own  children.  Thus  they  became  a 
self-contained  caste.  At  last  the  decline  of  the  Greek 
population  of  the  empire,  which  was  the  chief  tax-producing 
element,  rendered  the  serious  drain  upon  it  involved  by  the 
tribute  of  children  disastrous  to  the  finances  of  the  State. 
At  the  same  time  the  growing  turbulence  of  the  janissaries 
made  them  a  constant  source  of  anxiety  to  their  master. 

During  the  reign  of  Mohammed  iv.  (a.d.  1649-1687) 

'  See  Kyiiakos,  p.  9  flf. 


CYRIL    LUCAR    AND    THE    REFORMATION  311 

this  unnatural  method  of  recruiting  the  army  came  to  an 
end.  The  last  recorded  case  occurred  in  the  year  1676. 
Meanwhile  its  long  continuance  was  a  proof  of  the  abject 
degradation  of  the  people  who  endured  it  for  centuries. 
Not  only  was  it  a  cruel  outrage  on  the  family  ;  it  was  a 
barefaced  insult  to  Christianity,  since  it  was  an  organised 
instrument  of  apostasy.  How  came  the  Greeks  to  bow 
their  necks  to  the  humiliating  yoke,  instead  of  preferring 
death  to  the  dishonour  of  it  ?  In  other  respects  their 
peaceful  submission  to  the  Ottoman  rule  is  not  surprising. 
This  rule  was  not  always  harsh.  In  the  Turkish  Empire 
the  peasant  was  at  least  a  free  man,  while  in  Christian 
countries  at  the  same  time  he  was  a  serf,  subject  to  cruel 
feudal  tyranny.  Still,  in  spite  of  all  that  is  unheroic  in  the 
attitude  of  the  Greeks,  it  is  to  the  credit  of  the  Church 
that  she  held  on  her  course  through  centuries  of  abuse  and 
hardships ;  for  all  along  the  Christians  were  suffering  from 
wrongs  and  miseries  which  they  could  easily  have  escaped 
by  becoming  converts  to  Islam.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed 
that  none  took  this  tempting  course.  The  truth  is,  immense 
numbers  did  become  Mohammedans.  Manuel,  the  last  of 
the  Palseologi,  joined  the  religion  of  the  destroyer  of  his 
ancestors'  throne.  But  these  facts  do  not  derogate  from 
the  stubborn  fidelity  of  the  multitudes  who  resisted  the 
temptation  to  apostatise;  on  the  contrary,  they  enhance 
the  martyr-like  character  of  it.  The  Greek  Church  has 
always  gloried  in  her  orthodoxy ;  she  has  more  reason  to 
be  proud  of  her  very  existence,  more  ground  for  congratula- 
tion in  the  fact  that  she  has  not  been  worn  down  by  the 
continuous  friction  of  centuries  of  abuse  and  contempt. 

Unhappily  little  can  be  said  to  the  credit  of  the  highest 
officials  of  the  Church  during  these  desolate  ages.  For  the 
most  part  the  simple  peasants  who  clung  to  their  faith  did 
so  against  all  inducements  to  abandon  it.  The  case  of  their 
superiors  presents  a  grim  contrast  to  this  unworldly  fidelity. 
The  patriarchs  of  Constantinople  were  now  chosen  'and 
app(jinted  by  the  sultan,  although  the  fiction  of  a  synodical 
election  was  more  or  less  ostentatiously  preserved  ;   and  they 


312  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

generally  proved  to  be  pliant  instruments  in  the  hands  of  the 
government.  That  is  not  very  surprising,  since  they  were 
selected  with  this  end  in  view.  They  commonly  obtained 
the  post  by  bribery  and  held  it  by  sycophancy.  Thus  the 
Church  was  confronted  with  the  unedifying  spectacle  of  her 
chief  priest  cringing  before  the  infidel.  In  return  for  his 
subserviency  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople  was  allowed  to 
summon  synods  and  to  hold  courts,  not  only  for  ecclesi- 
astical, but  even  for  civil  cases,  among  his  own  people.^ 

The  patriarchs  were  frequently  deposed  by  the  sultans 
quite  arbitrarily,  and  they  often  bought  their  places  back 
again  ;  but  some  fell  into  perpetual  disgrace,  and  some  were 
strangled.  At  one  time  there  were  fourteen  patriarchs  in 
fifteen  years.  Some  of  the  patriarchs  were  of  notoriously 
degraded  character.  The  patriarch  Kaphael  was  said  to 
have  been  a  confirmed  drunkard  ignorant  of  Greek. 

Following  the  example  in  high  places,  bishops  bought 
their  positions,  and  were  used  by  the  government  as  magis- 
trates and  tax-gatherers.  The  orthodox  patriarchs  of 
Antioch,  Alexandria,  and  Jerusalem  were  very  differently 
situated.  These  chief  pastors  were  still  elected  by  synods 
of  local  bishops  as  in  older,  happier  times.  But  they  had 
very  little  power,  most  of  the  Christian  inhabitants  of  their 
provinces  being  heretics  out  of  communion  with  their  church. 
The  one  patriarch  who  exercised  effective  control  over  the 
Greek  Church  was  regarded  by  patriotic  Greeks  themselves 
as  a  renegade  and  a  traitor  to  their  cause. 

1  Professor  Kyriakos  states  that  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople  not 
only  did  not  lose  power  under  the  Turkish  government,  but  even  increased 
his  privileges  (GescMchte,  p.  26).  This  is  a  most  misleading  statement. 
Certainly  in  external  form  and  range  of  iniluence  such  was  the  case,  and 
that  in  two  ways— (1)  This  patriarch  was  now  set  over  all  the  orthodox 
Christians  in  the  Ottoman  Empire,  including  those  of  the  other  three 
patriarchates— the  patriarchates  of  Antioch,  Jerusalem,  and  Alexandria,  of 
course  only  those  of  the  orthodox  Church,  now  known  locally  as  Melchite. 
(2)  To  his  ecclesiastical  authority  was  added  civil  jurisdiction.  On  the 
other  hand,  he  could  not  call  his  life  his  own  if  in  any  matter  he  offended 
his  despotic  master.  Moreover,  what  he  gained  in  civil  power  was  more 
than  counterbalanced  by  what  he  lost  in  spiritual  influence,  as  the  nominee 
and  oiliccr  of  the  hated  Moslem  power. 


CYRIL  LUCAR  AND  THE  REFORMATION     313 

A  melancholy  characteristic  of  the  depression  and 
degeneration  of  the  later  Greek  Church  is  the  absence  of 
conspicuous  names  from  its  dismal  history.  If  there  were 
any  village  Hampdens  or  Miltons,  the  former  started  no 
successful  rebellions  and  the  latter  were  mute  and  inalori- 
ous.  During  outbreaks  of  popular  fanaticism,  and  underi 
the  cold,  calculating  persecutions  instigated  by  the  govern- 
ment from  time  to  time  in  opposition  to  its  professed 
policy,  no  doubt  the  noble  army  of  martyrs  was  enriched 
by  the  addition  of  many  a  humble  hero  of  the  faith.  But 
either  the  ability  or  the  opportunity  for  any  conspicuous 
feat  of  fidelity  was  lacking.  The  story  of  the  Church  had 
left  the  noble  highlands  where  striking  landmarks  rivet 
our  attention  and  descended  to  a  featureless  plain  with  the 
monotony  of  the  desert.  There  was  more  learning  silently 
cherished  in  the  monasteries  than  is  commonly  supposed, 
and  a  higher  standing  of  education  was  maintained  among 
the  Greeks  than  among  most  of  their  contemporaries  in 
Europe.  Moreover,  Greek  merchants  grew  rich  in  spite  of 
fiscal  disabilities.  But  there  was  no  intellectual  originality, 
no  literature  of  genius,  no  movement  of  distinction. 

In  all  this  barren  age  there  is  just  one  name  that  has 
emerged  out  of  the  fog  of  oblivion  into  European  fame,  and 
that  largely  owing  to  the  accident  of  Western  connections. 
This  is  the  name  of  Cyril  Lucar,  patriarch  of  Alexandria, 
and  subsequently  of  Constantinople,  who  lived  at  the  time 
of  the  Eeformation,  and  became  the  courageous  author  of 
an  abortive  attempt  to  introduce  the  principles  of  Pro- 
testantism into  the  East. 

The  Greek  Church  came  into  contact  with  Lutheranism 
under  the  patriarchs  Joseph  il.  and  Jeremiah  ii.,  and  later 
with  Calvinism  by  means  of  the  activity  of  Cyril  Lucar. 
In  the  year  1559,  Melanchthon,  taking  advantage  of  the 
return  of  Demetrius,  a  deacon  of  Constantinople  who  had 
been  staying  at  Wittenburg,  sent  a  copy  of  the  Augsburg 
confession  to  the  patriarch  Joseph,  claiming  agreement 
between  its  tenets  and  the  doctrines  of  the  Eastern  Church. 
It  was  received  in  chill  silence,  the  prosaic   interpretation 


314  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

of  which  may  be  that  since  it  only  existed  in  Latin  and 
German — languages  not  studied  at  Constantinople — -the 
patriarch  did  not  put  himself  to  the  trouble  of  getting  his 
deacon  to  explain  it  to  him.  Fifteen  years  later  (a.d. 
1574),  Martin  Crusius  produced  a  Greek  version  of  the 
confession  and  sent  it  to  Jeremiah  il.,  who  was  then  the 
patriarch  of  Constantinople,  and  received  in  return  a  polite 
reply.  Thus  encouraged,  Crusius  proceeded  to  point  out 
how  Lutheranism  differed  from  Eomauism  and  to  express  a 
hope  of  union  with  the  Eastern  Church.  Jeremiah's  reply 
is  uncompromising.  The  only  way  to  union  with  the 
orthodox  Church  is  to  "  follow  the  apostolical  and  synodical 
decrees."  There  can  be  no  broadening  out  of  a  common 
basis  of  union ;  the  sole  possibility  is  conversion  to  the 
Greek  Church  and  admission  into  that  communion  as  it 
now  stands  in  its  changeless  rigour  of  doctrine  and  dis- 
cipline. In  the  year  1578,  Jeremiah  received  a  fuller 
account  of  Lutheranism ;  but  nothing  came  of  any  of  these 
Lutheran  overtures. 

Cyril's  action  was  on  different  lines.  It  was  at  once 
less  ambitious  and  more  courageous.  He  knew  the  Greek 
Church  too  well  to  ignore  its  errors  or  imagine  that  in  its 
present  condition  any  fusion  with  a  Protestant  Church  -was 
either  practicable  or  desirable.  His  aim  was  a  reformation 
within  the  Eastern  Church  on  Calvinistic  lines — not  the 
High  Church  idea  of  the  reunion  of  Christendom,  but  the 
Protestant  conception  of  a  true  gospel  and  a  pure  Church. 

Cyril  Lucar  was  born  at  Candia,  the  chief  town  of 
Crete,  in  the  year  1572.  The  island  was  then  under  the 
mild  rule  of  the  Venetians,  who  allowed  more  religious 
liberty  than  any  other  power.  Several  Greeks  of  interest 
in  the  movements  of  this  time  came  from  Crete.  But 
Cyril  was  sent  to  Alexandria  at  the  early  age  of  ten, 
and  there  put  under  the  tuition  of  his  uncle  Meletius  Pega 
— another  Cretan  —  who  had  been  in  Italy  and  seen 
enough  there  to  return  with  strong  anti-Roman  convictions. 
Before  he  was  twelve  years  old  the  lad  was  sent  to  Venice, 
and  thence  to  Padua,  where  he  came  under  tlie  influence  of  an 


CYRIL  LUCAR  AND  THE  REFORMATION     315 

anti-Eoinan  teacher  Maximus,  afterwards  bishop  of  Cerigo. 
Subsequently  he  travelled  in  Germany  and  Switzerland, 
perhaps  also  in  England  during  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  though 
that  is  doubtful.^  In  the  year  1595  he  returned  to  Alex- 
andria and  was  ordained  a  deacon.  During  this  period  of 
his  life  we  find  him  for  a  time  at  Constantinople,  though 
on  what  business  nobody  knows.  The  Greeks  having  held 
a  conference  at  Wilna  witli  several  Lutheran  nobles  and 
divines  to  seek  a  basis  of  union  between  the  two  communions, 
although  with  no  results,  Sigismund,  the  king  of  Poland, 
an  energetic  champion  of  the  papacy,  forbade  the  propaga- 
tion of  Greek  Church  doctrines  in  his  dominions  under 
severe  penalties.  Meletius  then  sent  Cyril  to  Poland  on 
behalf  of  the  cause  of  the  Eastern  Church,  and  he  settled 
down  in  Wilna  for  a  time,  supporting  himself  by  teaching 
the  Greek  language.  He  was  now  like  an  ambassador 
from  the  Greek  Church,  an  intermediary  between  Poland 
and  the  East.  The  king  of  Poland  sent  him  to  Meletius, 
exhorting  the  patriarch  to  revere  the  primacy  of  St.  Peter 
and  acknowledge  the  pope.  Meletius  returned  a  respectful 
but  negative  reply,  and  at  the  same  time  formally  appointed 
Cyril  his  exarch  in  Sclavonia.  Meanwhile  Sigismund  began 
to  persecute  in  the  interest  of  the  Uniats — the  party  in 
favour  of  uniting  the  Greek  Church  with  Rome  on  the 
Eoman  terms.  Necessarily  Cyril  had  to  "  lie  low "  if  he 
would  remain  in  Poland  while  this  tempest  was  sweeping 
over  the  country.  But  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  yielded 
any  more  than  by  keeping  silence.  At  a  later  time  his 
bitter  enemy  the  Jesuit  Sarga  circulated  a  report  to  the 
effect  that  he  had  written  a  letter  to  the  archbishop  of 
Lowenberg  professing  his  adherence  to  the  Church  of  Eome. 
The  letter  was  a  forgery  and  the  accusation  based  upon  it  a 
barefaced  calumny. 

On   his  return  to   Alexandria  Cyril  was  sent   to  his 

native  island,   to  collect  the  usual  contributions  for  the 

patriarchate.      In  the  year  1602  he  succeeded  Meletius  as 

orthodox  patriarch  of  Alexandria.      While  he  was  in  this 

^  See  Neale,  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  vol.  ii.  p.  360. 


;516  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

office  the  English  king,  James  l.,  offered  him  free  education 
for  a  Greek  whom  he  might  send  over  for  the  "purpose. 
The  fortunate  recipient  of  this  favour  was  Metrophanes 
Critopulus,  who  sadly  disappointed  his  patrons  by  his  extra- 
vagance and  pretentiousness.  Probably  he  was  a  clever 
if  not  a  high-principled  young  man.  In  Germany  the 
Lutherans  assign  to  his  authorship,  "  A  Confession  of  the 
Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church  of  the  East."  On  his 
return  to  Egypt  he  became  a  metropolitan,  and  he  ulti- 
mately attained  to  the  patriarchate  of  Alexandria — of 
course,  like  Cyril,  for  the  "  orthodox  "  Greek  Church  there. 
The  bulk  of  the  Egyptians  were  of  the  Monophysite  Coptic 
Church. 

Cyril  opened  up  a  correspondence  with  Archbishop  Laud, 
whom  he  presented  with  an  Arabic  Pentateuch  "  as  a  sign  of 
brotherly  love "  ;  this  is  now  preserved  in  Oxford,  at  the 
Bodleian  Library.  When  on  his  travels  he  had  secured  a 
fifth  century  manuscript  of  the  Scriptures  at  Mount  Athos. 
This  was  the  oldest  accessible  Greek  Bible,  the  two  older 
manuscripts  which  scholars  now  use  being  as  yet  imknown — 
namely,  the  Vatican,  locked  up  in  the  pope's  library,  and 
the  Sinaitic,  lying  undiscovered  in  the  monastery  of  St. 
Catherine.  All  English  students  have  reason  to  think  of 
the  name  of  Cyril  Lucar  with  gratitude,  for  he  presented 
his  precious  manuscript  to  the  P]nglish  nation  in  the  person 
of  King  Charles  i.  It  now  lies  open  to  view  under  a  glass 
case  in  the  King's  Library  at  the  British  Museum — one  of 
the  most  valuable  of  all  the  valuable  treasures  owned  by 
Great  Britain.  We  know  it  as  the  Alexandrian  manuscript, 
not  like  the  Sinaitic  as  named  after  the  place  where  it  was 
found,  nor  because  it  represents  the  Alexandrian  text — 
which  is  the  text  of  the  Vatican  and  the  Sinaitic  manu- 
scripts— but  simply  because  its  donor  was  the  patriarch  of 
Alexandria,  so  that  it  came  to  England  immediately  from 
that  city. 

Cyril  commenced  his  reforming  efforts  in  the  Greek 
Church  while  at  Alexandria.  In  the  year  1621  he  became 
patriarch  of  Constantinople,  where  he  still  laboured  in  the 


CYRIL  LUCAR  AND  THE  REFORMATION     317 

interest  of  the  Eeformation.  He  was  succeeded  at  Alex- 
andria by  Gerasius,  another  Cretan,  but  a  staunch  upholder 
of  old-fashioned  Greek  orthodoxy. 

Cyril  drew  up  a  Confession  of  Faith,  a  perusal  of  which 
makes  it  clear  that  he  had  strong  leanings  towards 
Calvinism.  But  how  far  he  went  in  this  direction  has 
been  a  matter  of  dispute.  His  friends  of  the  orthodox 
Church,  and  also  English  High  Churchmen  anxious  for  union 
with  the  Greek  Church,  have  endeavoured  to  minimise  his 
Protestanism  when  they  have  not  thrown  over  Cyril  in 
despair  as  a  heretic.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  to  have 
some  of  his  statements  before  us  in  their  exact  phraseology 
if  we  would  judge  for  ourselves  where  he  stands.  He 
begins  with  an  affirmation  of  the  Trinity — with  respect  to 
which  all  the  leading  reformers  were  agreed  ;  but  he  affirms 
the  Greek  doctrine  that  the  Holy  Spirit  proceeds  from 
the  Father  by  the  Son.  Article  iii.  is  as  follows:  "We 
believe  that  God,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  pre- 
destinated His  elect  to  glory  without  respect  of  their  work- 
ing, and  that  there  was  none  other  cause  which  impelled 
Him  to  this  election  than  His  good  pleasure  and  Divine 
mercy ;  in  like  manner  that  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world  He  reprobated  whom  He  would  reprobate ;  of  which 
reprobation,  if  a  man  will  regard  the  absolute  right  and 
sovereignty  of  God,  he  will  without  doubt  find  the  cause  to 
be  the  will  of  God ;  but  if  again  he  regards  the  laws  and 
rules  of  good  order  which  the  Divine  will  employs  for  the 
government  of  the  world,  he  will  find  it  to  be  justice,  for 
God  is  long-suffering,  but  yet  just."  Here  we  have  the  full, 
unqualified  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  election,  including  re- 
probation, logically  supra-lapsarian,  though  the  final  clause 
seems  to  introduce  a  qualification  by  insisting  on  justice, 
but  that  only  dogmatically  without  any  attempt  at  a  re- 
conciliation with  the  earlier  statement.  The  confession 
decidedly  affirms  baptismal  regeneration  —  in  which  it 
agrees  with  the  majority  of  the  reformers.  It  declares  that 
Christ  alone  "  does  the  work  of  a  true  and  proper  Mediator  " 
— a    phrase   which    by  its  defining   attributes   "  true  and 


318  THP]   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

proper  "  has  been  said  not  to  exclude  the  secondary  inter- 
cession of  saints. 

Article  ix.  is  as  follows :  "  We  believe  that  none  can  be 
saved  without  faith.  By  faith  we  mean  that  which 
justifies  in  Jesus  Christ,  which  the  life  and  death  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  produced  for  us,  and  which  the  gospel 
preaches,  and  without  which  it  is  impossible  to  please 
God." 

In  treating  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  Cyril  says : 
"  The  Church  which  is  called  Catholic  containeth  all  the 
faithful  in  Christ,"  etc.  Then  he  proceeds,  "There  are 
particular  visible  churches,"  etc.  In  Article  xii.  he  dis- 
tinctly affirms  that  the  Church  can  err — a  statement  as 
abhorrent  to  an  orthodox  Greek  as  to  a  Eoman  Catholic. 
Article  xiii.  declares  that,  "We  believe  that  man  is  justified 
by  faith,  without  works.  But  when  we  speak  of  faith  we 
mean  the  correlative  of  faith,  which  is  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  on  which  faith  takes  hold,"  etc. 

If  this  is  not  Protestanism,  what  is  Protestantism  ?  It 
is  not  even  Melanchthon's  mild  and  tempered  synergism ; 
it  is  nearer  to  Calvinism  than  to  Lutheranism.  On  the 
great  dividing  question,  the  fundamental  question  of  the 
final  authority,  Cyril  is  decidedly  Protestant.  He  says, 
"  The  authority  of  Holy  Scripture  is  far  greater  than  that 
of  the  Church,  for  it  is  a  different  thing  to  be  taught  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  from  being  taught  by  man.  Man  may  through 
ignorance  err  and  deceive,  and  be  deceived.  But  the  Holy 
Spirit  neither  deceiveth  nor  is  deceived,  nor  is  subject  to 
error,  but  is  infallible."  This  reminds  us  of  Chilling- 
worth's  doctrine — "  The  Bible  the  religion  of  Protestants." 

In  June  1627,  Nicodemus  Mentaxa,  a  native  of  Cepha- 
lonia  and  a  monk,  who  had  been  to  England,  arrived  at 
Constantinople  with  a  printing  press  and  a  fount  of  Greek 
types.  The  English  ambassador  housed  them;  but  the 
Jesuits  tried  to  gain  over  Mentaxa.  They  plied  him  with 
threats ;  and  at  length  they  accused  him  of  treason  because 
he  printed  the  royal  arms  of  England  at  the  beginning  and 
end  of  his  book.     Mentaxa  began  the  printing  of  Cyril's 


CYRIL  LUCAR  AND  THE  REFORMATION     319 

confession,  but  the  Jesuits  broke  in  and  seized  the  types. 
Cyril  then  sent  the  document  to  Geneva,  wfiere  the  con- 
fession was  printed  in  a  Latin  version.  The  pubhcation  of 
it  created  a  sensation  in  Europe.  Here  was  the  first 
ecclesiastic  in  the  Greek  Church  professing  the  most 
thorough  -  going  Protestant  tenets,  even  eclioing  arrant 
Calvinism  !  Most  people  took  the  document  for  a  forgery. 
Then  Cyril  issued  a  new  edition  of  the  confession,  this 
time  in  Greek,  and  with  significant  additions.  He  declared 
that  the  faithful  ought  to  read  the  Holy  Scriptures.  The 
doctrines  necessary  to  be  believed,  he  said,  may  be  dis- 
covered for  themselves  by  regenerate  persons,  the  Holy 
Spirit  aiding  them,  and  Scripture  being  compared  with 
Scripture — most  outspoken  Protestantism  again,  and  that 
on  its  basal  principle  and  central  point  of  difference  from 
the  Church,  the  question  of  the  source  of  authority  in 
doctrine!  On  the  other  hand,  Cyril  says  nothing  about 
the  authority  of  the  Church.  He  adds  an  expression  of 
his  detestation  of  the  adoration  of  images — practically 
the  chief  popular  religious  function  in  his  own  Church. 

Cyril  did  not  find  his  patriarchate  a  bed  of  roses. 
No  patriarch  could  have  been  at  his  ease  in  the  office 
under  the  anomalous  circumstances,  but  a  reformer  amidst 
stereotyped  Eastern  orthodoxy  and  papal  intrigue  was 
doubly  threatened  in  this  post  of  danger.  The  Greeks, 
however,  did  not  at  first  trouble  themselves  to  interfere 
with  their  patriarch,  and  it  was  by  the  machinations 
of  his  most  deadly  enemies,  the  Jesuits,  that  he  was 
molested.  Cyril  issued  a  pastoral  calling  upon  the  faithful 
to  withdraw  from  communion  with  all  members  of  the 
Latin  Church.  But  he  had  not  the  authority  to  maintain 
his  policy.  Five  times  he  was  banished ;  and  five  times 
he  was  restored  to  his  office.  He  was  fortunate  in  havincr 
for  his  friend  the  grand  vizier,  who  was  not  to  be  deceived 
by  the  Hes  that  were  circulated  about  him.  At  last  his 
enemies  found  their  chance.  The  Sultan  Amuratli  was 
absent  from  Constanthiople  and  marching  to  Bagdad,  Vv-hen 
the  Jesuits  contrived  to  get  a  message  sent  to  him  informing 


320  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

him  that  Cyril  was  carrying  on  treasonable  correspondence 
with  the  Cossacks.  Anxious  in  the  prospect  of  war,  unable 
to  investigate  the  charge  at  a  distance,  in  hasty  anger, 
Amurath  ordered  the  patriarch  to  be  executed.  Cyril  was 
strangled  with  a  bow-string,  and  his  body  flung  into  the 
sea,  on  the  27th  of  June,  1638,  in  the  sixty-sixth  year  of 
his  age,  and  the  thu"ty-sixth  of  his  two  patriarchates.  Some 
fishermen  found  the  body,  and  it  was  buried  at  night  on 
an  island  in  the  bay  of  Nicomedia. 

Professor  Kyriakos  considers  that  Cyril  Lucar  "  must 
be    numbered    among    the    first    scholars    of    his    time."  ^ 
Whether  he  should  be  admitted  to  that  position  in  an  era 
of  encyclopaedic  learning  among  the  men  of  the  new  en- 
lightenment in  Germany  may  be  doubted.      But  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  in  the  East  he  stood  absolutely  alone,  the 
one  brilliant  star  of  his  age.      Better  than  that,  he  aimed 
at  a   genuine  reformation,  although   this  was  on  lines  of 
Western   theology  for  which  his  people  were  in  no  way 
prepared.      It  would  be  preposterous  to  look  for  reform  of 
the  Greek  Church  by  means  of  its  conversion  to  Calvinism. 
Cyril  was  followed  in  the  patriarchate  of  Constantinople 
by  his  namesake  at  Beroea,  who  summoned  a  synod  within 
three    months    of    his    predecessor's    death.       This    synod 
anathematised  the  confession  and  also  Cyril  Lucar,  betray- 
ingr  no  doubt  that  he  was  its  author.       It  affirmed   the 
duty  of  Christian  priests  to  repress  all  heresy  to  the  utmost 
of    their    power.       Cyril    Lucar    was    described    as    "  an 
intruder    into    the    throne    of    Constantinople,    abounding 
with  the  poison  of  the  deadliest  heresy  " ;  he  was  especially 
condemned  for  teaching  "  that   the  bread  offered   at   the 
altar  and  also  the  wine  are  not  changed  by  the  blessing  of 
the  priest  and  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  into  the  real 
body   and    blood    of   Christ " ;   and    anathematised   as    an 
"  Iconoclast  "  and  "  worse  than  an  Iconoclast."     The  decrees 
of  the  synod  were  signed  by  the  three  patriarchs,  including 
Metrophanes  of  Alexandria,  who  had  owed  so  much  to  the 
murdered  patriarch — an  instance  of  base  ingratitude. 

'  Ueschiclde,  p.  145. 


CYRIL   LUCAR   AND   THE    REFORMATION  321 

In  the  year  1642  another  synod  took  a  significant 
course.  It  condemned  Cyril's  confession  and  Calvinism 
together,  thus  plainly  showing  that  the  hishops  perceived  the 
connection  hetween  tliem  ;  this  synod  did  not  name  Cyril 
as  the  author  of  the  obnoxious  document.  But  in  the 
synod  of  Jassy  in  Moldavia,  which  was  held  a  little  later, 
this  confession  was  again  attributed  to  Cyril.  Among  the 
bishops  assembled  at  Jassy  was  Peter  Mogila,  the  Eussian 
ecclesiastic,  who  issued  a  counterblast  in  the  form  of 
another  confession  of  faith  which  came  to  be  accepted  as  a 
standard  test  of  orthodoxy.  It  was  not  till  thirty-four 
years  after  Cyril's  death  that  a  public  official  denial  of  his 
authorship  of  the  confession  that  bears  his  name,  was  put 
forth.  This  was  at  the  famous  synod  of  Bethlehem, 
which  Dositheus,  the  patriarch  of  Jerusalem — himself  a 
Cretan — took  the  opportunity  of  the  dedication  of  the 
new  church  in  the  year  1 672  to  gather  together  there.  The 
synod  condemned  the  Calvinistic  confession  and  denied  that 
Cyril  Lu.car  was  its  author,  A  patriarch  of  Constantinople 
emitting  such  poison !  The  idea  was  too  horrible !  It 
could  not  be  so !  We  can  appreciate  the  psychological 
attitude.  But  in  view  of  sober  historical  criticism,  can  we 
attach  any  real  value  to  this  repudiation  ?  The  further 
back  we  go,  the  closer  and  surer  is  Cyril's  connection  with 
the  confession.  A  late  denial  of  it  to  which  the  policy 
of  convenience  strongly  urged  has  no  weight  whatever.^ 

^  Moreover,  there  is  plenty  of  collateral  evidence  showing  that  the 
confession  was  quite  in  accordance  with  Cyril's  views  expressed  elsewhere, 
and  demonstrating  his  essential  Protestantism.  Thus  he  writes  to  the 
archbishop  of  Spalatro,  in  the  year  1618,  stating  that  for  three  years  he  has 
compared  the  doctrine  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches  with  that  of  the 
Reformed,  and  adding  as  the  result  of  this  prolonged  study,  "I  left  the 
Fathers  and  took  for  my  guide  Scripture  and  the  analogy  of  faith  alone.  At 
length,  through  the  grace  of  God,  because  I  discovered  that  the  cause  of  the 
reformers  was  the  more  just  and  the  more  in  accordance  with  the  doctrine 
of  Christ,  I  embraced  it."  What  could  be  more  explicit  than  that?  He 
contiuues,  "  I  can  no  longer  endure  to  hear  a  man  say  that  the  comments  of 
human  tradition  are  of  equal  weight  with  Holy  Scripture."  Then  he  states 
with  approval  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  original  sin.  He  professes  to 
affirm  what  he  calls  "the  Greek  doctrine  of  the  sacraments";  but  he 
repudiates  the  "chimera  of  transubstantiation. "     It  must  be  remembered 


322  THK    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

In  opposition  to  the  anathematised  confession  the 
council  endorsed  Peter  Mogila's  confession.  That  was 
thoroughly  Oriental.  But  this  council  in  its  antagonism  to 
Calvinism  went  further  and  leaned  towards  Kome.  It 
adopted  a  modified  doctrine  of  purgatory,  declaring  that  a 
certain  period  of  suffering  in  Hades  would  be  assigned  to 
"those  who  had  begun  to  repent,but  who  had  not  brought  forth 
works  meet  for  repentance."  The  synod  of  Bethlehem  in  a 
small  way  corresponds  in  the  Greek  Church  to  the  council 
of  Trent  in  the  Koman  Catholic  Church.  It  is  a  deliberate 
condemnation  of  the  Eeformation  and  re-endorsement  of 
the  old  teaching  and  practice. 

Although  Cyril's  attempt  to  originate  a  reformation 
in  the  Greek  Church  had  ended  in  failure,  this  fact  must 
not  be  set  down  to  the  brave  man's  discredit.  He  had 
not  displayed  any  intellectual  originality ;  he  had  not 
developed  reformed  doctrine  from  within  his  Church ;  he 
had  only  tried  to  transplant  an  exotic,  and  it  is  not 
sm-prising  that  this  would  not  take  root  in  a  strange  soil. 
The  Eeformation  in  England  was  not  indigenous.  It 
too  was  a  foreign  importation,  first  from  Wittenberg,  then 
from  Geneva.  But  the  case  of  the  remote  Eastern  Church 
is  very  different.  Greek  thought  had  been  rarely  much 
interested  in  movements  of  the  Western  mind.  It  was 
hardly  touched  by  the  Novatian  and  Donatist  schisms, 
and  but  slightly  affected  by  the  great  Pelagian  controversy. 
We   should    not    have  expected    therefore    that  it  would 

that  the  Greeks  had  never  worked  out  a  metaphysical  theory  of  the  trans- 
mutation of  the  elements  as  the  Latins  had  done,  and  had  never  accepted 
the  Roman  Catholic  theory  of  essence  and  accidents,  leaving  the  subject  a 
mystery.  But  their  doctrine  was  practically  the  same  as  the  Roman 
doctrine,  which  indeed  first  appeared  in  the  East,  most  distinctly,  for 
instance,  in  Gregory  of  Nyssa.  Now  Cyril  denies  it.  He  asserts  that  only 
the  faithful  participate — a  Calvinistic  idea  going  even  beyond  Luther,  who 
held  that  the  unworthy  do  receive  the  body  of  Christ,  but  to  their  hurt, 
and  certainly  as  foreign  to  the  Greek  as  to  the  Latin  Church.  Then  Cyril 
goes  on  to  denounce  the  popular  cult  of  icons.  "  As  to  image  worship,"  he 
writes,  "  it  is  impossible  to  say  how  pernicious  under  present  circumstances 
it  is. "  He  also  pronounces  against  the  invocation  of  saints — all  Protestant 
and  some  of  them  advanced  Calvinistic  declarations. 


CYRIL  LUCAR  AND  THE  REFORMATION     323 

have  been  much  moved  by  such  a  thoroughly  Western 
agitation  as  that  of  the  Reformation.  But  tliis  is  not  all. 
The  times  were  not  ripe.  In  the  East  there  had  been  no 
renaissance,  no  intellectual  awakening  as  in  the  West. 
There  had  been  no  precursors  of  a  reformation  such  as  the 
German  mystics,  no  stirring  of  conscience,  no  hunger  and 
thirst  for  better  things.  The  world  needs  "  the  man  and 
the  hour."  Perhaps  Cyril  was  not  the  man ;  he  had 
neither  Luther's  passionate  energy  nor  Calvin's  masterful 
will.  But  if  he  had  possessed  both  qualities  he  would 
have  failed  because  the  hour  had  not  sounded.  The  blow 
may  be  struck ;  but  there  will  be  no  explosion  if  the 
dynamite  is  not  ready.  The  Greek  Church  was  still 
in  the  patristic  period.  It  had  not  advanced  beyond 
John  of  Damascus.  To  Eastern  Christendom,  the  new  age, 
when,  as  the  enthusiastic  Ulric  von  Hutten  declared, 
"  it  is  a  joy  to  live,"  had  not  arrived.  Will  this  ever 
arrive  ? 

There  is  one  fact  of  a  more  specific  character  that 
must  not  be  left  out  of  account  when  we  consider  the 
heroic  career  of  Cyril  and  his  ultimate  failure.  Whatever 
views  we  may  hold  with  regard  to  the  question  of  an  estab- 
lishment of  religion  and  the  right  relations  of  Church  and 
State,  we  must  perceive  the  anomaly  of  the  Greek  situation. 
For  a  Christian  Church  to  be  officially  connected  with  a 
Mohammedan  government  could  not  but  be  an  unholy 
alliance.  When  Cyril  accepted  the  position  of  patriarch 
of  Constantinople  he  put  himself  in  a  false  position.  In 
one  way  he  gained  freedom  for  his  attempted  innovations. 
The  Ottoman  government  was  more  tolerant  than  most 
Christian  governments  of  his  time.  While  Spain  burnt  its 
heretics,  the  sultan  was  magnanimously  indifferent  to  the 
quarrels  among  his  Christian  subjects,  or  perhaps  he  was 
ready  to  welcome  them  as  weakening  the  power  of  the 
rival  of  Islam.  At  all  events,  as  the  officially  recognised 
head  of  the  Church  owing  his  appointment  to  the  sultan, 
Cyril  could  pursue  his  own  policy  with  a  large  measure 
of    independence.      But   he  paid    a   dear    price   for    that 


324  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

independence.  In  proportion  as  he  stood  aloof  from  the 
Greeks,  sheltered  by  Turkish  patronage,  he  lost  influence 
over  his  compatriots.  His  official  position  neutralised  his 
religious  mission.  He  was  bound  to  fail  for  the  reason 
that  "  no  man  can  serve  two  masters." 

Before  passing  from  this  disappointing  passage  of 
history,  it  may  be  convenient  to  glance  at  a  later  approach 
to  the  Eastern  Church  from  the  West,  in  the  quaint 
action  of  the  English  non-jurors.  Most  people  will  now 
consider  these  worthy  men  to  have  been  quite  wrong- 
headed.  A  little  knot  of  conscientious  "  passive-resisters  " 
to  the  settlement  under  William  and  Mary,  they  contained 
some  of  the  saintliest  souls  in  the  Churgh  of  England, 
among  others  Bishop  Ken,  the  author  of  well-known 
morning  and  evening  hymns.  No  one  can  doubt  their 
sincere  conscientiousness  or  their  deep  piety.  Now  it 
happened  in  the  year  1713  that  Arsenius  the  archbishop 
of  Thebais  was  in  England  on  one  of  those  many  humiliating 
begging  expeditions  to  which  the  representatives  of  the 
Greek  Church  were  repeatedly  driven  by  the  penury  of  their 
flock.  Here  he  came  in  contact  with  the  non-jurors,  and 
this  led  them  to  open  a  correspondence  with  the  Eastern 
patriarch  through  Peter  the  Great,  then  at  the  height  of 
his  power  in  Kussia.  In  the  year  1717  they  asked  the 
tsar  to  send  their  proposals  to  the  patriarchs,  as  from  "  the 
Catholic  remnant  of  the  British  Churches."  It  would 
seem  that  neither  Peter  nor  the  Eastern  prelates  at  first 
suspected  the  isolated  position  of  tlie  non-jurors  or  their 
comparative  insignificance.  Indeed,  so  obscure  was  the 
movement  on  the  English  side,  that  it  was  not  till  after 
some  years  that  news  of  it  reached  Archljisliop  Wade. 
Immediately  lie  learnt  what  was  going  on — which  was  in 
the  year  1724 — he  wrote  to  Cbrysanthus,  the  patriarch 
of  Jerusalem,  exposing  the  true  position  of  affairs.  This 
pricked  the  bubble.  The  non-juror's  dream  was  shattered 
in  a  moment. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  LATER  GREEK  CHURCH  UNDER  THE  TURKS 

(a)  Ricaut,  State  of  the  Ottoman  Empire,  1670,  and  Present  State  of 
the  Greek  and  Armenian  Churches,  1679  ;  Smith,  De  Gtcbccb 
hodiermo  Statu,  1680 ;  Covel,  Sorae  Account  of  the  Greek 
Church,  1722. 

(6)  Neale,  Holy  Eastern  Church  ;  Ranke,  llie  Ottoman  Empire,  1843  ; 
Findlay,  Greece  under  Ottoman  and  Venetian  Dominatio'ti, 
1856,  and  The  Greek  Revolution,  1861  ;  W.  A.  Phillips,  War 
of  Greek  Independence,  1897  ;  "Odysseus,"  Turkey  in  Europe, 
1900  ;  Cambridge  Modern  History,  vol.  x.  chap,  vi.,  1907  ; 
Kyriakos,  Geschichte  der  Orient.  Kirchen,  1902  ;  Silbernage, 
Verfassuny  und  gegenwartiger  Bestand  sdmtlicher  Kirchen  des 
Orients,  1904. 

The  later  history  of  the  Greek  Church  need  not  detain 
us,  for  although  Greece  has  never  enjoyed  the  happiness  of 
the  country  whose  annals  are  dull,  the  page  is  no  longer 
lit  up  by  the  presence  of  great  men  or  fresh  ideas.  For 
more  than  two  centuries  the  Church  was  dragged  through 
the  depths  of  degradation.  The  rapid  succession  of 
patriarchs  was  maintained  at  Constantinople,  precarious, 
subservient.  The  provincial  bishops  —  subject  to  the 
patriarch,  who  was  subject  to  the  sultan — were  entrusted 
with  a  measure  of  local  control  over  their  flocks.  An- 
other order  of  Greek  officials  serving  under  the  Turkish 
government  consisted  of  the  "  Phanariots,"  who  derived 
their  name  from  the  quarter  of  Constantinople  which  was 
their  centre.  These  men  had  the  charge  of  the  taxation, 
the  chief  concern  of  the  Ottoman  government,  which  was 
often  too  weak  to  protect  its  subjects  from  attack  and 
outrage,  and  wretchedly  indifferent  to  the  administration 

825 


326  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

of  justice,  that  should  liave  been  the  first  object  of  its 
existence,  but  always  energetic  in  the  collection  of  the 
taxes.  This  odious  task  was  entrusted  to  local  authorities 
drawn  from  among  the  Greeks,  who  were  despised  and 
hated  by  their  compatriots,  like  the  Jewish  publicans  in 
the  time  of  Christ.  After  the  bishops  and  the  Phanariots, 
there  were  no  people  of  any  power  or  influence  among  the 
Greeks.  Hospitals  and  charities  disappeared  for  lack  of 
support.  The  monks  were  so  poor  that  they  went  about 
visiting  the  markets  with  icons  and  cattle  for  sale. 
Libraries  were  stripped  of  their  treasures  in  ancient  manu- 
scripts, which  were  sold  to  any  chance  purchasers  and  so 
scattered  in  all  directions  beyond  hope  of  recovery.  In 
course  of  time  the  central  government  lost  vigour  and  the 
result  was  atrophy  of  the  extremities.  A  partial  dis- 
integration took  place  and  local  pashas  ruled  as  despots ; 
even  the  Phanariots  exercised  tyrannical  power  with  little 
supervision,  and,  as  men  who  had  sold  themselves  to  the 
foreign  oppressor,  proved  more  cruel  to  their  fellow-Greeks 
than  the  Turks  themselves.  The  extensive  coast-line  of 
Greece  left  much  of  the  mainland  as  well  as  the  islands 
dangerously  open  to  piratical  raids.  For  two  hundred  years 
the  most  characteristic  feature  of  the  history  of  Greece  under 
the  Turks  consists  in  the  repeated  raids  of  the  pirates,  both 
Turkish  and  Christian,  and  the  fights  to  which  they  gave  rise 
among  the  peasants  and  islanders.  The  concerns  of  religion 
seem  to  be  swallowed  up  in  a  struggle  for  bare  existence. 

One  interesting  series  of  events  breaks  the  monotony  of 
this  story  of  suffering  and  humiliation,  namely,  the  progress 
of  the  Venetian  conquests.  Venice  had  suffered  in  the 
general  deluge  that  had  swept  over  the  wreck  of  the  Byzan- 
tine Empire  under  the  great  Mohammed  il.  But  gradually 
she  more  than  recovered  the  ground  she  had  lost  in  Eastern 
Europe,  though  never  her  own  civic  grandeur.  After  a 
ruinous  war,  the  Venetians  succeeded  in  conquering  the 
Morea  (a.d.  1684).  But  while  they  were  thus  able  to 
restcjre  a  portion  of  the  Ottoman  Empire  to  Christendom, 
their  action  was  creating  a  fresh  complication  in  the  Greek 


LATER  GREEK  CHURCH  UNDER  THE  TURKS   327 

Church.  In  the  first  place,  they  were  Eoman  Catholics, 
with  whose  religious  position  the  Greeks  had  no  sympathy, 
having  lively  memories  of  the  intrigues  of  the  Jesuits  and 
the  attempts  of  the  Uniats  to  capture  the  orthodox  Church. 
Then  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople  was  a  functionary 
under  the  Turkish  government,  and  therefore  officially 
bound  to  be  opposed  to  the  Venetian  aggression.  Never- 
theless, Morosini,  the  able  Venetian  leader,  contrived  to 
establish  such  good  order  that  a  number  of  Greeks  were 
drawn  from  the  Turkish  provinces  in  the  north  to  share  in 
the  growing  prosperity  of  the  Morea.  Even  Mohammedans 
also  yielded  to  the  temptation,  and  some  of  them  joined 
the  Greek  Church,  without  any  interference  on  the  part  of 
the  authorities. 

The  Venetians  established  the  only  liberal  Eoman 
Catholic  government  of  the  age.  They  left  the  Greeks  free 
to  practise  their  religious  rites.  In  this  respect  the  policy 
of  Venice  was  wholly  different  from  that  of  Eome  and  the 
Jesuits,  by  whom  hitherto  the  Latin  Church  had  been  repre- 
sented in  the  East.  The  Venetians  restored  to  the  Eoman 
Catholics  the  churches  which  the  Turks  had  converted  into 
mosques ;  but  the  chief  of  these  chm-ches  had  been  built 
by  the  Franks  at  the  time  of  the  Crusades  or  later.  They 
did  not  permit  the  pope  to  interfere  with  the  Greek  Church, 
and  they  allowed  it  to  retain  all  the  powers  and  privileges 
it  had  possessed  under  the  sultan.  But  the  situation  was 
awkward,  because  all  the  Greek  bishops  in  the  Morea  were 
nominees  of  the  patriarch  of  Constanstinople,  who  also 
appointed  the  abbots  of  many  of  the  monasteries.  The 
Venetians  would  not  permit  an  exarch  of  the  patriarch  to 
live  in  the  Morea  or  any  patriarchal  missive  to  be  published 
by  the  clergy,  and  they  invited  the  Greek  communes  to 
elect  their  own  bishops.  This  can  hardly  be  regarded  as 
ecclesiastical  tyranny ;  it  was  a  political  necessity,  and, 
considering  the  odious  position  of  the  patriarch,  a  necessity 
not  unwelcome  to  patriotic  Greeks.  The  Eoman  Catholic 
priests,  who  of  course  were  now  free  to  enter  the  Morea, 
were  men  of  higher  character,  better  education,  and  more 


328  THE   GREEK   AND   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

disinterested  conduct,  than  the  local  Greek  clergy,  and  as 
such  they  won  respect  from  the  inhabitants.  Altogether 
the  Venetian  occupation  was  followed  by  an  improvement 
in  the  condition  of  the  conquered  province. 

Gradually  Morosini  pushed  his  forces  farther  north 
and  took  more  of  the  Grecian  territory  from  the  Turks. 
In  September  1687  he  entered  the  Pirseas,  occupied 
Athens,  and  besieged  the  Acropolis.  This  led  to  disastrous 
consequences  involving  an  irreparable  loss  to  the  civilised 
world.  The  Parthenon  was  then  standing  in  all  the  glory 
of  perfect  Greek  art,  the  grandest  product  of  Doric  archi- 
tecture, bearing  in  its  pediment  and  on  its  entablature  the 
masterpieces  of  Pheidias,  the  most  sublime  sculpture  the 
world  has  ever  seen.  Into  this  centre  of  classic  splendour 
crashed  the  Venetian  shells,  reducing  the  temple  to  ruins, 
pounding  some  of  the  sculpture  to  fragments,  and  leaving 
the  best  of  it  in  the  battered  and  broken  condition  in  which 
we  see  it  to-day  at  the  British  Museum,  where,  in  spite 
of  the  ill-usage  from  which  it  has  suffered,  it  is  still  recog- 
nised as  one  of  the  wonders  of  the  world  under  the  title 
of  "  The  Elgin  Marbles."  ^  It  is  humiliating  to  Europe  to 
eee  that  the  ruin  of  the  greatest  relic  of  art  in  the  city, 
that  had  been  the  crown  and  flower  of  ancient  civilisation, 
was  directly  caused  by  men  from  the  most  beautiful  city 
of  modern  civilisation,  that  it  was  the  owners  of  St. 
Mark's  who  shattered  the  Parthenon.  Here  we  perceive 
the  mockery  of  war,  which  flaunts  flags  of  glory  and  yet 
is  in  itself  a  shameful  heritage  of  brutal  barbarism. 

The  next  hundred  and  fifty  years  afford  little  of  in- 
terest to  be  recorded  concerning  the  fortunes — or  rather 
the  misfortunes — of  the  Greek  Church  under  the  Turkish 
domination.  Pirates  still  ravaged  the  coasts,  and  pashas  and 
Phanariots  continued  to  oppress  the  inland  people  who  were 
beyond  the  reach  of  the  wild  sea-rovers.  Simony  was  more 
rampant  than  ever.  The  clerical  office  was  systematically 
bought  for  the  sake  of  the  power  it  conferred  and  the  dues  it 

'  So  named  because  sent  to  England  by  Lord  Elgin  (after  suflfering  later 
ravages  of  war),  and  thus  at  last  saved  from  total  destruction. 


LATER  GREEK  CHURCH  UNDER  THE  TURKS   329 

commanded,  and  this  evil  continued  in  the  Venetian  territory 
of  Greece  also.  But  in  the  Morea  under  the  influence  of  the 
Catholic  priests  education  now  made  some  progress.  Thus 
Venice  was  sowing  the  seeds  of  a  better  future.  Eussia 
also,  under  the  influence  o£  Peter  the  Great,  was  stepping 
into  the  arena  of  European  politics  and  preparing  for  her  role 
as  the  protectress  of  the  Oriental  Churches.  But  the  tsar 
was  disappointed  in  not  being  joined  by  a  general  rising  of 
the  Christians  when  in  the  year  1711  he  advanced  to  an 
attack  of  the  Ottoman  Empire,  and  he  was  compelled  to 
agree  to  peace  on  humiliating  terms.  Thus  Eussia's  first 
serious  act  of  interference  only  resulted  in  mischief.  The 
Porte,  having  discovered  its  power,  proceeded  to  use  it  by 
expelling  the  Venetians  from  Greece.  In  1715  the  Turks 
seized  and  pillaged  Corinth,  making  slaves  of  the  Greeks 
they  captured  there.  This  led  the  terror-stricken  Greeks  of 
the  Morea  to  prostrate  themselves  before  their  old  enemies, 
and  to  invite  them  to  come  and  drive  out  the  Venetians. 
They  must  have  seen  good  reason  to  repent  of  their  short- 
sighted cowardice  when  they  were  sufifering  from  the  ravages 
produced  by  the  janissaries  in  the  process  of  reconquest. 
The  reversion  of  Morea  and  other  Venetian  acquisitions  to 
Turkey  was  confirmed  by  the  treaty  of  Passarovitz,  which 
followed  the  victories  of  Prince  Eugene,  and  was  signed 
on  the  21st  of  July  1718.  But  Venice  still  retained 
possessions  in  Dalmatia  and  other  parts. 

After  this,  by  degrees,  Eussia  again  assumed  the  proud 
position  of  champion  of  Eastern  Christianity.  In  1783 
Catherine  ii.  expelled  the  Mussulman  power  from  the 
Crimea,  where  it  had  held  its  ground  with  more  or  less 
tenacity  from  the  time  of  the  Mongol  invasion ;  and  about 
the  same  time  she  extracted  a  treaty  from  the  Porte  grant- 
ing the  Greeks  of  the  Archipelago  the  right  to  use  the 
Eussian  flag. 

Meanwhile  the  Greeks  had  been  doing  nothing  for 
themselves.  But  a  new  day  was  now  dawning.  After 
more  than  three  centuries  of  humiliation  and  oppression, 
once  again  Hellas  was  beginning  to  realise  her  national 


330  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

existence.  It  has  often  been  shown  in  history  that 
revohitions  do  not  occur  wlien  the  ])eople  who  revolt  are 
suftering  most  severely  from  o]i])iession.  In  those  dark 
and  dismal  days  the  ])ower  of  tyranny  is  too  great  to  allow 
of  any  ho])e  of  successful  resistance,  and  the  misery  of  its 
victims  simjdy  I)enuml>s  their  minds  and  ])aralyscs  their 
energies.  It  is  witli  the  beginning  of  better  times  that 
the  fatal  si)ell  of  desi)otism  is  broken,  and  daring  projects 
of  independence  are  engendered.  Then  the  slumbering 
emotions  of  ]»atriolisui  awake  from  their  unnatural  lethargy 
and  the  tyrant's  slaves  remember  that  they  are  men.  Thus 
it  was  in  (Ireece  at  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century. 
Already  it  seemed  as  though  the  Ott(im;m  rule  was  on  its 
decline,  its  vigour  decaying,  its  power  for  mischief  shrink- 
ing. There  were  isles  of  (Jreece  tliat  had  bct-ome  virtually 
self-governing.  Even  the  mainland  was  certainly  not  worse 
treated  than  ])reviously  ;  its  crudest  o])] lessors  were  not 
tlie  self-indulgent  Turks,  but  those  disgraceful  (Jreeks, 
nominally  fellow-Clnistians — the  rhann riots.  Another  in- 
fluence made  the  goad  of  tyranny  felt  more;  aculely,  although 
it  was  not  being  a])])lie(l  more  vigoiously.  This  was  the 
stirring  of  the  (liiick  spirit  itself.  l^'iiidlay  points  out 
that  it  began  with  education.  (Ireece  had  been  singularly 
Ix^hind  tlie  rest  of  Kurope,  not  so  luuch  in  the  degree  of 
education,  as  in  its  nature.  The  mo(Uun  s]iirit,  with  its 
revival  of  classical  antiipiity,  which  rost;  in  the  West  with 
the  Renaissance,  was  not  known  in  Kastctru  ICurope.  The 
East  had  neither  Renaissance  nor  IJcfoiiuation— tliose  two 
mighty  factors  of  the  woild  as  we  know  it.  'I'lie  vast  sigui- 
ticance  of  that  double  negation  can  scarcely  be  over-rated. 

Greece  was  still  back  in  th(^  Middle  Ages,  oi-  rather  in 
the  late,  the  decadent  patristic  ])erio(l.  Tier  intellectual 
development  had  been  ancsted  with  the  death  of  John  of 
Damascus,  the  List  of  thi!  l-'atliers.  Siiu^i  then  her  ednca- 
tion  had  not  been  neglected  ;  for  cent  ui  ies  it  was  fai'  in 
advance  of  that  of  the  rude  and  brutal  West,  and  it  was 
always  maintained  in  some  ({uarters  with  pedantic  Mssiduity. 
]>ut    it    was    patristic    education,    ecclesiastical    education. 


LATER    GRKEK    CHURCH    UNDER    THE   TURKS       831 

education  in  the  dead  thculdgy  of  an  efTete  Chm-cli.  All  life 
and  soul,  all  adventure  of  speculation,  all  passion  of  poetry, 
had  long  since  withered  out  of  it.  And  while  it  harked 
back  on  the  past  it  did  not  go  far  enough  in  that  direction 
to  find  inspiration.  It  cared  nothing  for  the  glories  of 
ancient  Hellas.  It  prided  itself  in  Chrysostom,  not  in 
Plato.  Its  boast  was  the  orthodoxy  of  its  Church,  not  the 
art,  ])oetry,  and  heroism  of  its  ancestry.  It  did  not  look 
back  beyond  Constantinople ;  it  never  found  in  Athens  a 
name  to  conjure  with. 

Then  a  new  spirit  awoke.  The  Greeks  were  roused  to 
remember  that  they  were  the  descendants  and  heirs  of  the 
most  magnificent  classical  antiquity.  The  educational 
reform  was  connnenced  by  Eugenios  Bulgares  of  Corfu, 
who  introduced  it  to  Joannina,  Mount  Athos,  and  Con- 
stantinople. This  alarmed  the  conservative  ecclesiastics 
and  annoyed  the  time-serving  Phanariots,  whose  influence 
with  the  sultan  put  a  check  to  it.  But  it  was  wel- 
comed in  Russia,  whither  Eugenios  was  invited  in  the 
year  1775,  and  where  he  was  made  bishop  of  Sclavonia 
and  Kherson.  He  wrote  a  book  on  religious  toleration 
which  still  more  irritated  the  dignitaries  of  his  Church, 
and  called  forth  a  reply  by  Anthimus  the  patriarch  of 
Jerusalem.  This  miserable  sycophant  congratulated  the 
Greeks  on  having  escaped  the  artifices  of  the  devil  to 
which  Catholics,  Lutherans,  and  Calvinists  had  all  suc- 
cumbed, and  gave  his  version  of  the  rise  of  the  Ottoman 
Empire  as  a  mark  of  the  particular  favour  of  heaven  to 
protect  them  against  the  Western  heresy  with  which  the 
last  of  the  Byzantine  emperors  were  infected.  Eugenios 
was  followed  by  Adamantius  Korais,  a  native  of  Chios, 
who  settled  in  Paris,  and  put  modern  Greek  into  a  literary 
form.  At  the  same  time,  he  uiged  the  principles  of 
religious  liberty  and  endeavoured  to  rouse  his  people  from 
the  intellectual  torpor  of  orthodox  bigotry.  Under  these 
influences  the  Greeks  began  to  realise  their  nationality  and 
to  dream  dreams  of  the  revival  of  their  great  past. 

Nevertheless,  the  early  t'hapters  of  the  story  of    the 


332  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

struggle  for  Greek  independence  are  grievously  disappoint- 
ing.*'   The   first   leaders   of    the    revolutionary   committee 
which  was   working   for    this   end,  known   as   the  PhiliU 
Hetairia,  were  self-seeking  men  who   deservedly  lost  the 
confidence    of    their    followers.      The    movement    did    not 
make  much  headway  till  it  was  taken  up  by  the  peasants,^ 
and  then  it  was  conducted  in   some  places   with   savage 
ferocity.     On  the  5th  of  April,  1 8  2 1 ,  a  thanksgiving  service, 
at  which  twenty-four  priests  officiated  while  5,000  fighting 
men  gathered  round,  was  held  at  Kalmata,  in  the  open  air, 
by  the  side  of  a  rushing  torrent,  to  celebrate  the  success  of 
the  Greeks  in  Messenia.     Two  days  after  this,  Petrobey,  the 
commander  of  the  insurgent  army,  issued  a  proclamation 
in  conjunction  with  a  few  primates — local  Greek  officials, 
corresponding  to  the  Constantinople  Phanariots — whom  he 
designated  the  "  Senate  of  Messenia."     It  was  addressed 
to  all  the   Christian   nations,  and  its  object  was  to  seek 
their  assistance  in  throwing  off  the  Ottoman  yoke.      But 
the  Greeks    had    to    fight    for  their    liberties.      Dreadful 
scenes  accompanied  the  popular  risings  which  now  ensued. 
Perhaps  the  worst  case  was  that  of  the  Morea,  where  the 
Greeks  murdered  the  whole  Mussulman  population,  amount- 
ing to  ten  or  fifteen  thousand  peaceable  men,  women,  and 
children,  scattered  over  the  peninsular,  and  quite  helpless 
because  overpowered    by  numbers.      They  first  killed  all 
they  could  lay  hold  of  in  the  country  parts.     Some  escaped 
to    the   towns.      But  one  after  another  the    towns   were 
taken,  and  all  the  Turks  who  had  sought  refuge  in  them 
were  also  massacred.     This  was  not  a  mere  savage  out- 
burst ;  it  was  planned  and  instigated  by  the  Hetairists.     And 
it   succeeded.       The    Morea  was  freed    from  the  Turkish 
tyranny.      The   grim   fact   cannot   be   denied.      The    most 
damning  evidence  of  the  evil  of  despotism  is  seen  in  its 
destruction  of  natural  human  sympathies  among  the  slaves 
it  debases  by  its  cruelty. 

The   savage  method  of  seizing  the  prize  of  liberty  had 
to  be  paid  for  at  a  heavy  price.      The  sultan  had  already 
*  See  Findlay,  Greek  Revolution,  vol.  i.  p.  195. 


LATER  GREEK  CHURCH  UNDER  THE  TURKS   333 

begun  to  take  severe  measures  for  the  suppression  of  the 
insurrection.  When  the  news  of  the  massacre  in  the 
Morea  reached  him  he  executed  sixteen  of  the  Hetairists 
in  one  day.  Then  he  had  a  number  of  Greeks  of  the 
highest  rank  seized  as  hostages,  under  the  circumstances 
a  sensible  pohcy  ;  several  were  beheaded.  On  the  22nd 
of  April  the  despot's  vengeance  reached  its  climax  in 
the  execution  of  Gregorios,  the  patriarch  of  Constanti- 
nople, now  an  old  man,  much  respected  by  his  flock, 
who  was  hung  from  the  lintel  of  the  gate  of  the  patri- 
archate with  his  sentence  fixed  to  his  breast.  His  body  was 
exposed  for  three  days  and  then  given  to  the  mob  to  be 
dragged  through  the  streets  and  flung  into  the  sea.  Ee- 
covered  by  the  Christians,  it  was  conveyed  in  an  Ionian 
vessel  to  Odessa,  where  it  was  received  as  a  holy  relic  by 
the  Kussians  and  buried  with  great  pomp.  The  accusation 
against  Gregorios  was  complicity  in  the  insurrection.  It 
would  seem  that  he  had  not  taken  any  active  part  in  it, 
but  that,  on  the  other  hand,  he  had  possessed  some  know- 
ledge of  what  was  going  on  which  he  had  not  reported  to 
the  government.  Constructively,  this  was  treason  against 
the  Ottoman  power  to  which  he  owed  his  appointment,  so 
that  the  sultan  was  justified  in  executing  him  ;  and  yet 
to  have  betrayed  his  fellow-Christians  would  liave  been 
treason  to  his  race  and  his  religion.  It  was  a  terrible  dilemma 
for  a  good  man  to  be  in.  Few  can  blame  him  for  the 
course  he  chose,  which  was  that  of  silence.  But  this  was 
one  more  evidence  of  the  monstrous  anomaly  of  the  position 
he  held  as  the  chief  pastor  of  the  Eastern  Church  and  at 
tbe  same  time  an  official  of  the  Mohammedan  government. 
Gregorios  was  a  man  of  high  character,  and  the  calm  and 
dignified  way  in  which  he  died  helps  us  to  sympathise  with 
the  view  of  the  Greeks  who  honour  him  as  a  martyr. 

The  violent  death  of  so  venerable  a  personage  as  the 
old  patriarch  of  Constantinople  sent  a  shock  of  horror 
through  Europe.  The  Tsar  Alexander  withdrew  his  repre- 
sentative from  the  city.  This  was  not  merely  a  diplomatic 
move,  since  it  appears  that  the  Kussian  ambassador  was  in 


334  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

personal  clanger.  Finally,  the  tsar  proceeded  to  concentrate 
an  army  of  100,000  men  on  the  borders  of  the  princi- 
palities. 

Meanwhile  the  conflagration  of  insurrection  was  spread- 
ing.    When  the  monks  of  Mount  Athos  discovered  that 
Kussia  was  not  going  to  support  it  they  were  reluctant  to 
give  it  their  sanction.      Their  predecessors  had  been  wise 
in  coming  to  terms  with   Mohammed  ii.,  the  conqueror  of 
Constantinople.      Although  for  a  time  they  favoured  the 
Hctairists,  ultimately  they  too   came    to  terms,  believing 
that  the  privileges  of  the  Holy  Mountain  would  be  better 
protected  by  the  Turks  than  by  the  Greek  revolutionists. 
The  situation  was  very  complicated  ;  because  in  its  origin 
the  revolution  was  mixed  up  with  demands  for  religious 
liberty.      The   orthodox    Church,   under   the   patriarch   of 
Constantinople  and  the  bishops  who  were   responsible  to 
the   Porte,  was  in  a  way  an   appanage   of   the    Ottoman 
government.     Besides,  it  was  hide-bound  in  conservative 
officialism.      On  the  other  hand,  men  who  had  tasted  the 
sweets  of  liberty  thirsted  for  it  in  Church  as  well  as  in 
State.     But  no  Greek  Churchmen  were  more  conservative 
than   the  monks  of   Mount  Athos.      While   as  Christians 
they  were  opposed  to  the  Mussulmans,  and  would  naturally 
have  sided  with  their    fellow-Christians    in  endeavouring 
to  free  the   Church    from   the    yoke  of    Islam,  they  had 
the   greatest  antipathy  to  the    spirit    represented  by  the 
French  Revolution,  the  infection  of  which  had  been  caught 
by  the  Greek   insurgents.      A  modern  free  -  thinking  re- 
volutionist was   more  alarming  to  them  than  a  stolid,  old- 
fashioned   Turk.       So    they    finally    decided    that   on  the 
whole  it  would  be  best  for  them  to  go  on  as  they  were 
These  monks  have  always  enjoyed  large  privileges  of  self- 
government,  but  little  molested  by  the  Turkish  government. 
Their    peculiar    situation    on    their    isolated    isthmus  has 
enabled  them  to  live  to  themselves  without  interference 
from  the  great  world  beyond.      But  the  judgment  of  the 
monks  of  Mount  Athos  was  not   without  confirmation  in 
other  quarters.      The  primates  and  bishops  discovered  that 


LATER  GREEK  CHURCH  UNDER  THE  TURKS   335 

the  military  leaders  were  not  at  all  inclined  to  hand  the 
powers  of  government  over  to  them,  so  that  they  actually 
possessed  less  power  under  their  fellow-Greeks  than  they 
had  exercised  under  the  Turks.  The  spirit  of  revolution  is 
never  sympathetic  with  officialism,  whether  lay  or  cleric. 

It  does  not  fall  within  the  limits  of  this  chapter  to 
sketch  the  course  of  the  final  establishment  of  Greek 
independence.  If  there  is  much  that  is  disappointing  in 
the  issue,  let  it  be  remembered  that  history  cannot  repeat 
itself.  The  modern  Greeks  could  assume  the  names  of 
Pericles  and  Demosthenes  ;  they  could  not  conjure  into 
life  again  the  genius  and  glory  of  ancient  Hellas. 
Greece  was  now  inhabited  by  a  mixed  population.  Very 
early,  shoals  of  Sclavs  had  poured  over  the  Balkans  into 
the  south ;  subsequently  Albanians  had  come  in  great 
numbers  ;  in  some  places  the  actual  Greeks  were  quite  out- 
numbered by  the  alien  immigrants.  The  resultant  popula- 
tion is  only  Hellenic  in  geography,  language,  and  religion, 
not  at  all  in  purity  of  race.  The  Greeks  of  to-day  are  not 
the  Greeks  of  Solon,  and  Pericles,  and  Plato.  They  are  a 
mixed  race ;  which,  however,  is  bravely  striving  to  revive 
the  ancient  Hellenic  traditions.  We  may  well  congratulate 
them  on  the  liberties  they  have  won  and  the  progress  they 
are  still  making,  without  burdening  them  with  the  absurd 
expectation  that  they  will  emulate  in  the  twentieth 
century  A.D.  the  deeds  of  their  predecessors  of  the  fourth 
century  B.C. 

After  Greece  had  established  her  freedom,  the  con- 
nection of  the  Church  in  Greece  with  the  patriarch  of 
Constantinople  was  difficult  to  define.  At  first  all  mutual 
relations  were  broken  ofiP.  This  was  inevitable,  since  the 
patriarch  was  an  accredited  official  under  the  Ottoman 
government.  The  clergy  ceased  to  mention  the  patriarch's 
name  in  then-  prayers,  and  in  this  respect  followed  the 
example  of  the  prayers  used  in  those  parts  of  the  Greek 
Church  which  were  outside  his  recognised  rule.  The 
independence  of  the  Church  in  Greece  was  not  effected 
without  opposition.     Bishops  from  provinces  of  the  Turkish 


336  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Empire,  encouraged  by  tlie  monks  of  Mount  Athos,  came 
into  Greece  in  order  to  support  the  ))at,i  iarch's  claim  of 
authority ;  but  the  Greek  bishops  would  not  yield  to  their 
persuasions. 

In  the  year  1833  a  national  synod  decreed  that  the 
orthodox  apostolic  Church  of  Greece,  while   it    preserves 
the  dogmatic  unity  of  the  Eastern  orthodox   Churches,  is 
dependent  on  no  external  authority  and  spiritually  owns 
no    head    but    the  Founder    of    the  Christian    faith.     In 
external     government,    which    belongs    to    the    crown,    it 
acknowledges   the  King   of  Greece  as  its  supreme   head. 
The  Holy  Synod  consists  of  prelates  appointed  by  the  king, 
and  a   royal   delegate  attends   its  meetings   and   counter- 
signs its  decrees,  having  a  veto  on  its  proceedings.      Since 
the  patriarch  ignored  this  decision  two  parties  now  arose, 
one  supporting  it,  the    other  siding  with   Constantinople. 
At  length,  after  much  negotiation,  in  the  year   1850   the 
patriarch  and  synod  of  Constantinople  published  a  decretal 
of  the   Oriental   Church   recognising  the  independence  of 
the  Greek  Church  under  certain  restrictions,  the  terms  of 
which  were  adopted  two  years  later  by  the  Greek  Parlia- 
ment.     According  to  this  decision,  the  rights  of  the  Greek 
synod  in  home  affairs  are  recognised,  but  the  patriarch  can 
interpose  in  matters  that  affect  the  whole  Church.      In  the 
year    1863,   Prince   George,   a   Lutheran,   having    become 
King  of  Greece,  it  was  enacted  that  "  The  orthodox  Church 
of   Greece,  acknowledging  for  its   Head   the   Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  is  indissolubly  united  in  doctrine  with  the  Greek 
Church  of  Constantinople  and  with    every  other  Church 
liolding  the  same  doctrines." 

The  patriarch  of  Constantinople  is  the  spiritual  head 
of  the  whole  orthodox  Church,  and  the  secular  head  of 
the  Greek  Church  in  the  Turkish  dominions.^  He  has 
jurisdiction  over  the  whole  of  European  Turkey,  part  of 
Bulgaria,  Eumelia,  Asia  Minor,  the  ^gean  Islands,  and 
Crete.      During  the  years  1843  to  1845  there  was  a  great 

^  See    Silbernagl,     Verfassung   und  gegeawariiger  Bestand    samtlicher 
Kirchen  des  Orients,  p.  9. 


LATER    GREEK    CHURCH    UiNDER    THE    TURKS       337 

contest  between  the  patriarcli  of  Constantinople  and  the 
synods  of  the  patriarcliates  of  Jerusalem  and  Syria  on  the 
riglit  to  choose  their  patriarchs  without  reference  to  Con- 
stantinople, and  the  latter  gained  their  point.^  But  the 
orthodox  patriarch  of  Alexandria  is  still  subject  to  the 
patriarch  of  Constantinople.  He,  however,  is  a  merely 
titular  official  with  but  a  shadow  of  a  diocese,  since  the 
Copts  of  the  national  Cliurch  in  Egypt  are  Monophy sites, 
se])arated  from  the  Greek  Church.  There  are  about  37,000 
orthodox  Greek  Christians  in  Egypt,  28,000  under  the 
patriarch  of  Antioch,  15,000  sul)ject  to  the  patriarch  of 
Jerusalem.^ 

Melancholy  as  the  story  of  the  Greek  Church  during 
the  later  centuries  of  its  history  may  be,  it  is  cheering  to 
observe  signs  of  awakening  life  during  quite  recent  years. 
These  are  to  be  traced  in  two  directions. 

In  the  first  place  there  is  a  remarkable  development 
of  scholarship  among  the  higher  ecclesiastics.  Learning 
was  never  allowed  to  die  out  in  the  leading  monastic 
centres ;  but  hitherto  this  has  been  patristic  learning 
without  the  least  recognition  of  critical  scholarship.  Now 
the  criticism  of  the  West  is  breaking  into  the  mind  of  the 
East.  Students  from  the  Greek  Church  are  now  to  be 
foimd  in  German  universities.  The  result  is  that  the 
studies  of  Berlin,  and  Heidelburg,  and  Strasburg  are  being 
transplanted  to  Constantinople  and  Athens.  Already  these 
studies  have  borne  fruit,  and  the  Greek  Church  is  comincr 
forward  with  its  contributions  to  historical  theology. 

The  other  movement  is  of  a  more  popular  character. 
It  consists  of  the  formation  of  societies  for  Biblical  study.^ 
These  societies  are  quite  unecclesiastical  in  form  and  are 
chiefly  maintained  by  laymen.  At  first  they  were  frowned 
upon  by  the  clergy.  But  their  good  effects  in  reformation  of 
character  are  winning  them  recognition  as  truly  Christian 
brotherhoods,  that  men  who  have  the  spiritual  and  moral 

^  See    Silbernagl,    Verfassung  und    gegenwartiger    Bestand    samtlicher 
Kirchen  des  Orients,  p.  24. 

^  Ibid.  p.  26.  '  Called  a'SWoyoi,  or  vereins. 

22 


338  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN   CHURCHES 

welfare  of  the  people  at  heart  should  welcome  gladly. 
Unlike  similar  movements  in  Russia,  which  are  almost 
confined  to  dissenters  in  formal  separation  from  the 
national  Church,  these  societies  do  not  involve  any  such 
severance.  We  may  compare  them  to  the  Bible  readings 
of  evangelical  members  of  the  Church  of  England,  such 
as  those  that  are  fed  by  the  fervour  of  Keswick.  But  they 
are  more  closely  organised,  and  cannot  but  be  recognised 
as  indicating  some  return  to  the  primitive  idea  of  the 
Clmrch. 

The  movement  is  spreading  rapidly.  At  Constantinople 
there  are  more  than  ten  of  these  brotherhoods.  In  Smyrna 
quite  a  new  religious  life  is  blossoming  out  among  the 
associations.  They  have  appeared  at  Ephesus,  at  Heleopolis, 
at  Arreon.  In  some  places  the  brotherhood  has  led  to 
two  preachings  on  the  Sunday,  one  early  in  the  morning 
actually  in  the  church,  the  other  in  the  club-house  {Verein- 
hause)  later  in  the  day  ;  for  this  second  preaching,  however, 
sometimes  there  is  substituted  a  catechising  of  men,  women, 
and  children.  In  Athens  there  are  two  brotherhoods. 
One  has  been  formed  at  Patros  in  Cyprus.  Meanwhile 
the  need  of  schools  for  the  clergy  is  being  pressed,  and 
already  there  is  preaching  by  the  parish  popes  in  some 
places  and  no  longer  only  by  visiting  priests  and  bishops. 

As  early  as  the  year  1818  a  Greek  society  for  the 
circulation  of  the  Scriptures  was  formed  with  the  approval 
of  the  patriarch  Cyril  VI.,  and  in  conjunction  with  the 
British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society.  Nevertheless,  the  excite- 
ment which  arose  in  the  year  1901  on  the  translation  of 
the  Bible  into  the  vernacular  would  appear  to  indicate 
a  reactionary  movement  on  the  part  of  the  obscurantists. 
But  the  case  is  very  complicated.  In  the  first  place  there 
is  a  strong  clerical  aversion  to  a  translation  promoted  by 
laymen  without  any  ecclesiastical  sanction.  Then  the  new 
passion  for  classicism  is  irritated  by  a  seeming  degradation 
of  Scripture.  It  is  said  that  no  Greek  vulgate  is  needed, 
as  the  children  are  now  taught  to  read  classical  Greek 
in  the   schools.       Behind  all  this  there  is  the  inveterate 


LATER    GREEK    CHURCH    UNDER    THE    TURKS       339 

horror  of  innovations  in  the  Greek  Church,  together  with 
the  superstition  of  the  ignorant  population  in  chnging  to 
the  old  venerated  form  of  the  Bible. 

Whether  the  brotherhoods  will  be  able  to  remain  in 
connection  with  the  ancient  Greek  Church,  whether  they 
are  the  little  leaven  that  is  to  leaven  the  whole  lump — a 
consummation  to  be  devoutly  desired,  or  whether  the 
garment  of  antiquity,  stiffened  with  its  threefold  em- 
broidery—  doctrinal,  ceremonial,  disciplinary,  will  prove 
too  inflexible  to  allow  it  breath  and  life,  the  future  will 
declare.  In  the  latter  case  we  may  see  a  Greek  Pro- 
testantism breaking  away  from  the  old  orthodox  Church. 
But  if  that  result  can  be  avoided  without  stifling  the  new 
movement,  we  may  hope  that  the  old  dream  of  More  and 
Erasmus  in  the  West  may  come  true  in  our  own  day  in 
the  East,  and  an  ancient  Church  be  revived  and  reformed 
from  within.  With  the  sad  history  of  that  Church  before 
us  it  is  difficult  to  be  sanguine  of  such  a  result.  We  cry 
with  the  sceptical  prophet,  "  Can  these  dry  bones  live  ? " 
But  at  all  events  the  new  movement  deserves  warm 
encouragement  from  earnest  Christian  people,  that  the 
light  thus  kindled  may  not  be  quenched  and  the  great 
Church  of  the  East  sink  down  again  into  dim  torpor. 


CHAPTER    Til 

THE  OUTJ.YING  BHANCHRS  OF  THE  GREEK 
CHURCH 

Hackett,  History  of  the  Orthodox  Church  of  Cyprus,  1901  ;  Malan, 
History  of  the  Georgian  Church,  1866 ;  Jirecek,  Geschichte  der 
Bulgaren,  1876,  and  Das  Flirstentlmm  Buhjarien,  1891  ;  Miller, 
The  Balkans,  1898  ;  La  Macedoine,  1900  ;  von  Mach,  The  Bul- 
garian Exarchate,  1907  ;  Mijatovich,  History  of  Modern  Servia, 
1872  ;  Comte  A.  de  Gubernatis,  La  Servie  et  les  Serbes,  1898  ; 
Silbernagl,  Verfassung  und  gegenwartiger  Bestand  scimtlicher 
Kirchen  des  Orients,  1904. 

The  independence  of  the  Church  in  Greece  is  not  without 
precedents.  One  of  the  most  interesting  is  afforded  by  the 
Church  of  Cyprus,  the  history  of  which  is  exhaustively 
described  in  Mr.  Hackett's  learned  work.^  That  Church, 
which  was  founded  by  Paul  and  Barnabas,  claimed  to  be  in- 
dependent of  patriarchal  interference  on  the  ground  of  its 
apostolical  origin  and  its  ancient  usage.  Nevertheless,  the 
patriarch  of  Antioch  endeavoured  to  bring  it  into  subjection 
to  his  authority ;  and  therefore  it  sent  an  appeal  to  the 
council  of  Ephesus  on  the  question  (a.d.  4.30),  which 
resulted  in  a  decision  in  favour  of  the  independence  of 
Cyprus.  It  was  decreed  that,  "  if  it  l)e  not  in  accordance 
with  ancient  custom  for  the  bisliop  of  Antioch  to  hold 
consecrations  in  Cyprus,  as  the  most  religious  men  who  are 
in  attendance  at  this  holy  council  have  assured  us  in  their 
memorials  and  orally,  the  presidents  of  the  holy  churches 
which  are  in  Cyprus  sliall  enjoy,  freed  from  molestation 
anil  hindrance,  the  right  of  performing  for   themselves  the 

'  A  Ifisfory  of  the  Orthodox  Church  of  Cyprus. 
340 


OUTLYING  BRANCHES  OF  THE  GREEK  CHURCH   341 

consecrations  of  the  most  holy  bishops  according  to  the 
canons  of  the  holy  Fathers  and  ancient  custom "  (Canon 
viii.).  The  caution  of  the  council  in  making  this  decision 
conditional  is  very  remarkable.  But  no  patriarch  of 
Antioch  in  later  times  was.  able  to  produce  evidence 
rebutting  the  statement  of  the  Cypriolites  concerning 
the  "  ancient  custom." 

In  the  reign  of  Zeno  (a.d.  474-491),  Peter  the  Fuller, 
then  patriarch  of  Antioch,  revived  the  claim  to  authority 
over  Cyprus,  and  the  emperor  favoured  his  cause,  till 
the  alleged  appearance  of  St,  Barnabas  in  a  vision, 
leading  to  the  discovery  of  his  bones  in  a  chest  under  a 
carob  tree,  silenced  all  opposition.  Nevertheless,  a  certain 
connection  with  Antioch  was  preserved,  Cyprus  receiving 
the  holy  chrism  from  the  patriarch  of  that  city,  but  of 
necessity  in  those  later  times  when  only  patriarchs  could 
consecrate  it.  Therefore  they  were  misled  who  took  this 
fact  as  a  sign  of  general  subjection.  Subsequently  Cyprus 
became  famous  as  the  see  of  the  Church  writer  Epiphanius. 
In  the  year  647  the  island  was  conquered  by  the  Arabs, 
the  chief  city  Constantia  destroyed,  the  metropolitan  church 
profaned,  and  many  of  the  citizens  massacred.  So  cruel 
was  the  Mussulman  oppression  that  a  great  number  of  the 
inhabitants,  led  by  their  archbishop  John,  left  Cyprus  and 
settled  in  the  province  of  the  Hellespont  at  the  invitation 
of  the  emperor,  Justinian  II.  There  they  preserved  their 
ecclesiastical  independence,  as  an  orthodox  Church,  now 
within  the  confines  of  the  patriarchate  of  Constantinople, 
but  no  more  under  its  jurisdiction  than  they  had  been 
previously  under  that  of  Antioch,  The  migration  of  these 
"  pilgrim  fathers "  was  not  a  success.  They  were  not 
destined  to  anticipate  the  story  of  the  Mayflower  and 
the  founders  of  New  England.  Many  perished  on  the 
journey.  The  remnant  who  landed  did  not  stay  long; 
they  soon  returned  to  Cyprus,  where  they  lived  on  as 
best  they  could  under  the  Mohammedan  rule,  but  still 
as  a  distinctly  organised  Church, 

Under  Constantine  Copronymus  Cyprus  was  temporarily 


342  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

freed  from  the  grasp  of  Islam  (a.d.  743).  But  it  was 
recaptured  early  in  the  ninth  century  hy  the  famous  Harun- 
al-Rashid,  Yet  even  suhsequent  to  this  misfortune  it 
enjoyed  a  measure  of  liherty,  so  that  it  was  used  as  an 
asylum  by  fugitives  from  Moslem  oppression  in  Palestine 
and  Syria.  After  undergoing  various  vicissitudes  of  fortune 
Cyprus  was  finally  wrested  from  the  Arabs  by  the  emperor, 
Nicephorus  Phocas  (a.d.  963-969).  It  now  remained 
under  the  Byzantine  rule  till  it  was  taken  possession  of 
by  the  English  king,  Richard  i.,  and  then  used  for  some 
time  as  a  strategical  centre  from  which  the  Crusaders  could 
invade  Syria.  Eichard  sold  the  island  to  the  Templars, 
who  in  turn  gave  place  to  the  Knights  of  St.  John. 

After  the  scandalous  capture  of  Constantinople  by  the 
Franks,  like  the  rest  of  the  Greek  Church,  Cyprus  was 
annoyed  by  the  impertinent  pretensions  of  Western  prelates. 
At  a  meeting  of  the  Latin  clergy  now  domiciled  in  Cyprus, 
it  was  decreed  among  other  things  that  no  Greek  should 
be  ordained  as  a  priest  or  admitted  into  a  monastery 
without  the  consent  of  his  feudal  superior,  who  of  course 
was  a  Latin.  The  orthodox  clergy  were  required  to  swear 
fealty  to  the  Latins.  They  appealed  against  this  exaction 
to  the  Greek  patriarch  of  Constantinople — now  residing 
at  Nicsea — and  he  forbade  them  to  yield.  The  result 
was  much  distress  and  confusion  for  the  Greeks  in  Cyprus, 
which  led  them  at  last  to  petition  for  definite  union  with 
the  patriarchate  of  Constantinople,  a  proposal  to  which 
many  difficulties  were  raised  owing  to  the  alleged  con- 
tamination of  their  Church  with  Western  usages  (a.d. 
1405-1412).  The  monk  Bryennios,  who  had  been 
commissioned  to  enquire  into  the  situation,  argued  strongly 
against  the  union,  declaring  that  for  his  own  part  he  would 
rather  suffer  a  thousand  deaths  than  see  the  orthodox 
Church  united  to  the  Cypriolite.  Thus  this  unhappy 
Church,  which  in  the  old  days  had  fought  for  her  inde- 
pendence of  Antioch,  was  now  forced  to  remain  apart 
when  she  sought  union  with  Constantinople.  The  Venetian 
occupation  made  no  difference  to  the  strained  ecclesiastical 


OUTLYING  BRANCHES  OF  THE  GREEK  CHURCH   343 

situation.  Cyprus  was  still  submitting  against  her  will  to 
papal  intrusion  on  the  one  hand,  and  yet  repudiated  on 
the  other  hand  by  the  Eastern  Church  because  of  that 
intrusion. 

In  the  year  1570  the  island  was  captured  by  the  Turks, 
an  event  which  was  not  altogether  evil,  since  it  put  an  end 
to  the  tyranny  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  had  exer- 
cised over  the  Greek  Christians  for  four  centuries.  At  first 
the  Ottoman  rule  was  mild  ;  the  Cypriolites  were  allowed 
the  free  use  of  their  churches,  the  right  to  ransom  their 
monasteries,  permission  to  acquire  property,  and  the 
supremacy  of  the  orthodox  over  all  other  Christian  bodies 
in  the  island.  No  indulgence  was  shown  to  the  Latins. 
The  Greek  bishops  were  constituted  guardians  of  the 
Christian  community,  and  in  process  of  time  the  influence 
of  the  archbishop  overshadowed  that  of  the  Turkish 
governor.  But  he  had  continual  trouble  with  Turkish 
rapacity  and  misgovernment.  We  cannot  follow  out  the 
weary  story.  The  last  scene  of  cruelty  is  the  worst.  It 
occurred  early  in  the  nineteenth  century.  Archbishop 
Cyprianos  had  exerted  himself  in  promoting  education  and 
improving  the  condition  of  his  flock.  When  the  Greek  war 
of  independence  broke  out,  Cyprianos  and  his  clergy  were 
accused  to  the  Porte  of  complicity  in  the  rebellion.  On 
the  9th  of  July  in  the  year  1821  the  archbishop  and 
three  metropolitans  were  saddled  like  horses  in  front  of 
the  governor's  palace  ;  bits  were  roughly  forced  into  their 
mouths,  breaking  their  teeth ;  they  were  driven  along 
with  spurs,  and  finally  hanged  on  trees.  Nearly  all  the 
Christians  of  eminence  were  also  massacred.  One  account 
gives  470  as  the  number  of  the  victims.  At  length  deliver- 
ance came.  In  the  year  1872  Cyprus  passed  into  the  hands 
of  the  British  government.  Since  then  the  Greek  Church 
in  the  island  has  been  entirely  free.  There  is  an  English 
missionary  church ;  but  of  course  this  has  no  official  status, 
and  unlike  the  old  Latin  Church  it  has  neither  power  nor 
desire  to  interfere  with  the  ancient  orthodox  Church  of 
Cyprus. 


344  THE   GREEK   AND   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

The  Church  of  Georgia  is  another  branch  of  the 
Greek  Church,  which  long  enjoyed  a  virtually  inde- 
pendent organisation.  The  Georgians  appear  to  be  the 
most  ancient  race  inhabiting  the  Caucasus,  having  no 
affinity  either  with  the  Aryan  or  with  the  Turanian 
families.  They  are  famous  for  having  preserved  a  line 
of  kings  for  two  thousand  years,  reigning  sometimes  inde- 
pendently and  at  other  times  under  the  suzerainty  of 
Persia,  of  the  Eastern  Empire,  and  of  Turkey.  A  similar 
individuality  is  to  be  seen  in  their  Church,  although  it  has 
always  been  considered  as  part  of  the  great  orthodox 
Church  of  the  East.  Claiming  a  fabulous  origin  under 
the  patronage  of  the  Virgin  Mary  and  through  the  preaching 
of  St.  Andrew,  it  has  been  traced  back  to  the  third  century, 
under  the  influence  of  a  woman  named  Nonna,  or  Nina,  a 
poor  captive  who  is  said  to  have  converted  the  king, 
Miriam  (a.d.  265  —  318).  In  the  next  century,  under 
Constantine,  Greek  missionaries  effectually  Christianised 
the  little  isolated  mountain  kingdom ;  and  from  that  time 
to  this  it  has  preserved  its  fidelity  to  the  faith  in  spite  of 
harsh  persecution,  first  from  the  Persians,  then  from  the 
Mohammedans.^  Miriam's  son  and  successor,  Bakar,  is  said 
to  have  been  a  zealous  Christian  who  caused  the  gospel  to 
be  preached  among  his  people,  and  had  churches  built  in 
various  places  over  the  land.  One  of  the  most  famous, 
the  cathedral  of  Khoni,  is  ascribed  to  the  next  king — 
Muridat  ill.  The  Georgians — or  Iberians  as  they  were 
also  called,  had  bishops  consecrated  at  Constantinople, 
and  were  reckoned  in  the  patriarchate  of  Antioch.  But 
their  remoteness  and  national  and  racial  distinctness  led 
to  their  Church  history  running  its  own  course,  apart 
from  that  of  the  main  body  of  the  orthodox  community. 
At  the  end  of  the  fourth  century.  Bishop  Abda  having 
set  fire  to  a  Persian  temple  and  refusing  to  rebuild  it,  the 

^  The  claim  put  forth  for  St.  George  as  a  missionary  and  patron  saint 
of  Georgia  is  due  to  ignorance  of  the  origin  of  the  kingdom's  name  and 
wholly  without  foundation.  "Georgia"  is  derived  from  the  Persian  Gurj. 
So  we  have  Gurjistan  =  Gurgland  =  Georgia. 


OUTLYING    BRANCHES    OF   THE   GREEK    CHURCH       345 

coimtry  was  invaded  by  the  Persians.      Near  about  the 
same   time   it  was  ravaged  by  the  Roman  forces  and  as 
a  result  its  church  broken  off  from  connection  with  the 
Greeks.      Muridat  iv.  came  under  the  glamour  of  Julian's 
strange  religion,  which   had   so   little  fascination  for  that 
emperor's  own    subjects;  but   his  son,  Archil  (413-446), 
carried   on   an    active    campaign    against  heathenism  and 
heresy.     The  New  Testament  appears  to  have  been  trans- 
lated into  Georgian  during  the  fifth  and  sixth ^  centuries.^ 
About  the  same  time  Archbishop  Mobidakh,  a  Persian  by 
birth,  introduced  Arianism   into  Georgia  and  endeavoured 
to  force  it  on  the   Church.      He  was  deposed  by  a  synod 
under  the   influence    of    Bishop  Michael    and  the  queen, 
Sandukhta,  an  earnest    Christian  woman  who  had  built  a 
church  at  Mtykhetha  in  honour  of  the  proto-martyr,  St. 
Stephen.      Subsequently  Zoroastrianism  made  some  progress 
in  Georgia ;  on   the   other  hand,  the   conversion  of  one  of 
the  Magi  named  Rajden  to   the   Christian  faith,  and  his 
martyrdom  among   his  own  people  by  being  nailed  to  a 
cross  and   there   torn  to   pieces,  had  a   counter  influence. 
The  Church  of  Georgia  was  now  organised  under  its  chief 
bishop,  who  bore   the  title    of    Catholicos  of   Mtykhetha 
and   of  Iberia.       He   does   not   appear  to   have   been   re- 
sponsible to  any  of  the  four  patriarchs  after  the  year  556, 
when  P'harsman  ill.  separated  the  country  from  the  Byzan- 
tine   authority.       During  the  reign   of   the   same  king  a 
great  impulse  was  given  to  Christianity  in  Georgia  by  the 
arrival    of    thirteen    preachers    from    Syria.       An    air    of 
mystery  surrounds  them.      They  are  said  to  have  reached 
Mtykhetha  by  crossing  a  river  dry  shod.      Their  advent 
and  influence  suggests  the  coming  of  the  friars  to  England. 
The  real  miracle  was  the  spiritual  awakening  that  accom- 
panied their   mission.       Their    reputed    burial-places  are 
marked  by  churches  still  standing. 

The    story   of    the    Georgian    Church   is   a    record  of 
repeated   persecutions.     After  the  successive  Persian  per- 
secutions under  the  Magi  came  the  Mohammedan  flood  of 
1  See  Scrivener,  Introduction,  4th  edit.  vol.  ii.  pp.  156-158. 


346  THE   GREEK   AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

conquest  and  its  consequent  sufferings  for  the  Christians. 
In  the  ninth  century  the  district  of  Ap'bkhazia,  which  stood 
politically  separate  from  Georgia  under  its  own  king,  also 
had  its  own  catholicos,  so  that  the  Georgian  Church  now 
consisted  of  two  mutually  independent  provinces.  In  the 
same  century  an  Iberian  convent  was  founded  at  Mount 
Athos  It  still  exists  and  is  now  the  third  in  impor- 
tance among  the  monasteries  of  the  Holy  Mountain. 
David  III.,  known  as  "  the  Keformer,"  coming  to  the  throne 
in  the  year  1089,  called  together  a  synod  which  purged 
the  Church  of  the  Monophysite  and  other  heresies.  He 
showed  himself  a  strong  ruler  both  as  regards  Church  and 
State.  Now  came  the  most  flourishing  days  of  Georgia — 
during  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  centuries — when  Georgians 
of  some  eminence  in  science  and  literature  did  their  work. 
Among  them  were  Arsenius,  theologian,  physician,  meta- 
physician, and  poet,  called  from  the  caves  of  Shiomgiusk 
to  be  court  chaplain ;  Ephrem,  his  schoolfellow  ;  George, 
the  founder  of  the  school  at  Tiphlis  and  translator  of 
Scripture ;  Theophilus,  the  "  creator  of  hymnology "  in 
Georgia ;  John  Taitcha,  whose  writings  are  said  to  be  pre- 
served at  Mount  Athos ;  and  Demetrius  the  Solitary  of 
Garedj.  The  reign  of  Queen  Tamar  in  the  second  half 
of  the  twelfth  century  has  been  reckoned  the  golden  age 
of  Georgian  literature,  both  ecclesiastical  and  civil.  Then 
followed  a  time  of  overwhelming  calamities  during  the  de- 
vastating invasion  of  the  Mongols  under  Genghis  Khan,  when 
Christians  of  all  classes  and  ages  were  burnt  alive  in  the 
churches,  and  pyramids  of  human  heads  marked  the  pro- 
gress of  his  soldiers.  Mtykhetha  was  reduced  to  a  heap 
of  ruins,  its  cathedral,  said  to  have  been  a  most  beautiful 
building,  sharing  in  the  general  destruction,  and  all  the 
inhabitants  remaining  in  the  city  killed.  The  number  of 
deaths  attributed  to  this  pest  of  humanity  in  Georgia  alone 
was  estimated  at  300,000. 

Genghis  Khan  left  the  bleeding  country  disorganised 
and  in  hopeless  confusion.  She  had  scarcely  begun  to 
recover    before    the    Turks    commenced    their    incursions. 


OUTLYING  BRANCHES  OF  THE  GREEK  CHURCH   347 

Almost  in  despair,  the  queen,  Eusudana,  appealed  for  help 
to   the  pope,  Gregory   TX.    (a.d.   1239).     She   received  in 
response  a  mission  of  seven    monks   sent    to   convert   her 
country  to  the  papacy!      In  the  year  1400  came  Timour, 
with  his  sweeping  deluge  of  ruin.      Throughout  all  these 
troubles   Georgia   remained   true  to  the  faith   and  added 
continually    to    her    glory    of    martyrdom.      Alexander   i. 
(A.D.    1414-1442)  rebuilt   the   cathedral    of    Mtykhetha, 
a  structure  which  is  in  existence  to-day.     A  little  later 
serious    attempts    were    made    by    the    papacy    to    bring 
Georgia  into  the  Eoman  Church,  but  without  any  result. 
The   fall    of    Constantinople    left    the    Georgians    at    the 
mercy  of  the  Mohammedans  and  without  a  friend.     The 
bishops    were    silenced,    the    schools    closed,    the    people 
harried   by  the  Moslem  Persians.     At   length   this   much 
persecuted  nation    turned  to   Eussia  for   protection.      In 
the  first  instance  that  course  did  not  bring  much  relief. 
During  the  seventeenth  century  a  succession  of  apostates 
from  the  Church  ruled  Georgia  as  Mohammedans.     But 
in  the  year  1701,  Wakhtang  vi.,  a  Christian,  came  to  the 
throne;   he    enacted   a  series   of  laws  on  Christian  lines, 
known  as  the  "  Code  of  King  Wakhtang."     Now  followed 
a  period  of  temporary  prosperity.     But  the  next  sovereign 
was  a  Mohammedan,  and  after  his  reign  Georgia  suffered 
again     and    again    from    alternate    Persian    and    Turkish 
tyrannies,  in  the    midst  of    which    troubles    the    Church 
■  was  seriously  disturbed  by  a  mission  of  Capuchin  monks 
and  by   other  efforts  to    induce  it   to   enter  the   Eoman 
communion.      For  a  time  the  current  seemed  to  be  setting 
in  that  direction,  no  doubt  in  despair  of  deliverance  from 
intolerable  oppression,  except  by  help  in  the  West.      But 
ultimately  Oriental  orthodoxy  triumphed. 

In  the  year  1783,  Georgia  came  under  the  protection 
of  Eussia,  and  the  Church  of  Georgia  was  then  united  to 
the  Eussian  Church.  In  the  year  1800  the  country  be- 
came an  integral  part  of  the  Eussian  Empire.  Eleven  years 
later  the  office  of  catholicos  was  abolished  and  the 
metropolitan   then    entitled   "Member  of   the  Synod  and 


348        thp:  greek  and  eastern  ohurches 

Exarch  of  Georgia."      He   is  now   known  as   "  Exarch  of 
Karthalinia  and  Kakheth." 

The  Church  of  Montenegro  may  be  mentioned  as  from 
the  first  a  virtually  independent  body  in  the  orthodox 
communion.  This  little  mountain  State  has  the  unique 
glory  among  its  neighbours  of  never  having  been  conquered 
l)y  the  Turks.  Formerly  its  Vladika,  or  prince  bishop,  if 
not  already  ordained  was  required  to  obtain  ordination 
from  the  orthodox  metropolitan  of  Carlo witz.  In  the 
nineteenth  century  the  ordination  was  transferred  to  the 
metropolitan  of  Paissia.  On  the  death  of  the  Vladika 
Peter  ii.  (a.d.  1851)  the  offices  of  prince  and  bishop 
were  separated. 

It  remains  for  us  to  note  those  limbs  of  the  Greek 
Church  which  have  been  more  recently  severed  from  the 
parent  stock  on  national  grounds,  although  retaining  their 
doctrinal  orthodoxy. 

One  of  the  most  important  branches  of  the  orthodox 
Church  now  independent  of  the  patriarchate  of  Con- 
stantinople and  organised  as  a  separate  national  church  is 
the  Church  of  Bulgaria.  Here  a  racial  distinction  lies 
at  the  root  of  the  severance  from  the  Greek  authority. 
The  Bulgarians  are  a  Turanian  race,  akin  to  the  Finns  and 
the  Tartars,  who  first  appeared  on  the  banks  of  the  Pruth 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  seventh  century.  From  the  time 
of  the  conversion  of  Boris  in  the  ninth  century  they  have 
been  a  Christian  people  and  part  of  the  holy  orthodox  Church. 
Tliey  have  an  ancient  literature  dating  back  to  the  age  of  the 
founders  and  early  organisers  of  their  Church,  Cyril  and 
Metliodius,  which  consists  for  the  most  part  of  translations 
of  Greek  theological  works.  Bulgaria  became  a  centre  of 
the  activity  of  the  Bogomiles,  and  therefore  a  scene  first  of 
religious  revival  and  then  of  its  too  common  sequel — 
persecution.  Conquered  by  the  Turks  in  the  fifteenth 
century,  Bulgaria  long  suffered  from  the  withering  blight 
of     the    Ottoman    tyranny    in    common    with    the    other 


OUTLYING  BRANCHES  OF  THE  GREEK  CHURCH   349 

Oriental  Churches.  She  was  even  in  a  worse  plight  than 
her  neighbours.  The  misgovernment  of  the  Phanariots 
and  the  despotism  of  the  bishops  who  owed  allegiance  to 
the  patriarch  of  Constantinople  as  a  minister  of  the  sultan 
were  hard  enough  to  be  borne  in  Greece ;  but  there  the 
people  had  at  least  to  deal  with  their  fellow-countrymen. 
In  Bulgaria  the  oppression  was  in  the  hands  of  an  alien 
priesthood.  The  patriarch  of  Constantinople  appointed 
(rreek  bishops,  and  they  in  turn  Greek  parish  popes.  The 
state  of  affairs  may  be  compared  to  that  of  the  Anglican 
Church  in  Ireland  and  Wales  until  recent  times.  But  it 
was  really  ten  times  worse ;  for  this  alien  priesthood  was 
in  the  employ  of  the  cruel,  unjust,  Mohammedan  govern- 
ment of  the  Ottoman  Empire.  Thus  the  Bulgarians  suffered 
from  a  double  grievance — the  intrusion  of  foreign  Church 
leaders,  and  these  men  acting  as  servants  of  the  Turkisli 
tyranny  under  which  they  groaned  —  a  Greek  ministry 
serving  the  Turks. 

At  length  patriotic  or  rather  racial  feelings  began 
to  stir  in  the  breasts  of  the  long-enduring  Bulgarians. 
The  revival  sprang  from  a  literary  awakening,  which  was 
first  seen  in  the  work  of  Paisii,  a  Bulgarian  monk  of 
Mount  Athos,  who  published  a  history  of  his  people  and 
their  saints.^  This  was  followed  by  the  autobiography  of 
Bishop  Sofronii,^  written  in  a  modified  Sclavonic  dialect. 
Bulgarian  schools  were  now  established.  That  provoked 
the  Greek  clergy  to  establish  schools  of  their  own,  and  to 
attempt  the  suppression  of  Sclavonic  literature  in  favour 
of  the  Greek.  But  the  national  movement  spread.  The 
Bulgarians  addressed  an  appeal  for  support  to  the  pope, 
and  for  a  time  some  progress  was  made  in  connecting 
their  Church  with  the  Uniats.  But  this  never  went  far, 
and  it  soon  died  out.  The  people's  aspiration  was  for 
an  independent  Bulgarian  Church.  There  were  repeated 
attempts  at  insurrection  ;  but  they  all  failed.  It  was  the 
Greek    ecclesiastical    tyranny,    ratlier     than    the    Turkish 

^  Istoria  Slavcno  Bolgarska. 

^  Life  and  Sufferings  of  the  Sinful  Sofronii. 


350  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

political  despotism,  against  which  the  movement  was 
agitating.  The  sublime  Porte  was  astute  enough  to  take 
advantage  of  this  fact.  It  had  no  compunction  in  throw- 
ing over  its  own  subservient  slaves  if  by  so  doing  it  could 
divide  and  weaken  the  Christian  element  in  the  empire. 
On  the  11th  of  March,  1870,  the  Turkish  government  issued 
a  firman  granting  the  Bulgarians  a  right  to  possess  their 
own  exarchate  independent  of  the  patriarch  of  Con- 
stantinople. He  was  to  have  jurisdiction  over  fifteen 
dioceses,  and  others  were  to  be  added  if  two-thirds  of  the 
population  desired  it.  The  patriarch  strenuously  opposed 
this  measure,  and  delayed  the  execution  of  it  for  two  years. 
In  the  year  1872  the  first  exarch  was  appointed;  and  the 
patriarch  immediately  excommunicated  him.  On  the  23rd 
of  April  of  that  year  the  exarch,  supported  by  three 
bishops,  all  lying  under  the  ban  of  the  patriarch,  celebrated 
the  communion  in  the  Bulgarian  church  at  the  Phanar ; 
on  the  11th  of  May  the  Bulgarian  Church  was  declared 
independent;  and  on  the  16th  of  September  the  patriarch 
of  Constantinople  formally  cut  off  all  followers  of  the 
exarchate  as  schismatics.^ 

The  issue  proved  that  the  Turks  had  miscalculated 
their  policy.  The  Christian  cause  was  not  weakened  by 
the  ecclesiastical  severance  of  Bulgaria ;  on  the  contrary, 
it  proved  to  be  strengthened  thereby.  Schools  spread ; 
education  advanced ;  the  revival  of  Christianity,  so  long 
dormant  and  inoperative,  but  now  quick  and  active,  roused 
a  spirit  of  energy  and  independence.  The  Porte  was 
alarmed,  and  it  showed  its  terror  in  the  usual  way  by 
indulging  in  massacre.  Then  came  the  infamous  "  Bul- 
garian Atrocities,"  in  which  15,000  persons  were  killed 
in  the  district  of  Philippopolis  alone,  while  murders  and 
outrages  on  men,  women,  and  cliildren  went  on  in  many 
other  places.  Mr.  Gladstone  roused  the  indignation  of 
England  and  compelled  the  English  government  to  end  its 
shameful  protection  of  Turkey.  First  Servia,  next  Eussia 
invaded  the  Turkish  Empire,  the  latter  being  completely 
*  von  Mack,  The  Bulgarian  Exarchate,  p.  18. 


OUTLYING  BRANCHES  OF  THE  GREEK  CHURCH   351 

victorious  after  an  arduous  struggle.  In  the  year  1878 
the  treaty  of  San  Stephano  granted  independence  to  Bul- 
garia ;  but  under  the  influence  of  Lord  Beaconsfield  this  was 
modified  in  the  treaty  of  Berlin,  held  a  few  months  later, 
when  Bulgaria  was  divided  into  three  parts,  one  of  which 
was  handed  back  to  Turkey  with  pledges  of  protection  of 
the  Christians  by  the  European  powers — pledges  which 
have  never  been  effectually  fulfilled.  The  Bulgarian  exarch 
now  resides  at  Constantinople.^ 

Macedonia  is  closely  associated  with  Bulgaria.  It 
contains  a  mixed  population  of  Greeks,  Vlachs  who  repre- 
sent the  aboriginal  Thracians,  Albanians — the  old  lUyrians, 
Sclavs,  Turks,  and  Bulgarians.  Still  included  within  the 
Turkish  Empire,  the  Macedonian  Christians  are  subject  to 
the  patriarch  of  Constantinople.  But  they  were  pro- 
foundly affected  by  the  Bulgarian  revival,  which  resulted 
in  the  establishment  of  bishoprics  under  the  exarch  of 
Bulgaria.  Thus  Macedonia  shows  a  divided  ecclesiastical 
allegiance.  In  the  year  1886  a  priest  named  Margaritis 
founded  a  gymnasium  at  Monastir  on  modern  principles  of 
education.  This  was  done  with  the  approval  of  the  Porte 
and  the  sympathy  of  the  French  Eoman  Catholic  mission- 
aries, and  with  some  signs  of  Austrian  sympathy  also.  The 
tendency  of  such  a  movement  was  directly  contrary  to 
the  obscurantism  of  the  patriarch's  policy.  But  it  pro- 
voked an  educational  rivalry  on  the  Greek  side,  and  the 
Greeks  under  the  patriarch  also  commenced  to  establish 
schools. 

Servia,  of  which  the  original  inhabitants  were  Thracians 
or  Illyrians,  was  known  to  the  Eomans  as  Mcesia  Superior, 
and  incorporated  by  them  in  the  province  of  Illyricum.  It 
was  won  to  Christianity  under  missionaries  sent  by  the 
Byzantine  emperor,  Basil  n.,  and  thus  it  became  an  integral 
part  of  the  orthodox  Church.  But  in  the  year  1043 
Stephen  Bogislav  drove  out  the  imperial  governors,  and 
seven  years  later  his  son  Michael  established  the  complete 
independence  of  the  country,  with  himself  as  king,  secur- 
1  Silbernagl,  p.  89. 


352  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

iug  recognition   of  his   sovereignty  from   the    great  pope, 
Gregory  vil.      Hildebrand  was  always  ready  to  seize  on  a 
political    opportunity   of    extending    the    influence  of   the 
papacy  on  the  borders  of  the  Eastern  Church.      We  have 
here   one  illustration  among   many   of  the   interaction  of 
State  and  Church  in  the  mutual  relations  of  the  Eastern 
and   Western  Churches.     A  people  seeking  independence 
and  out    of   sympathy  with  the  government  at  Constan- 
tinople would  turn  to  Eome  for  aid,  and  would  meet  with 
a  ready  support,  because  the  popes  were  on  the  watch  for 
opportunities  to  slip  into  a  province  of  the  Greek  Church 
as  the  protectors  of  some  oppressed  race.      In  this  way  the 
bad  government  of  the  imperial  authorities  at  Constantinople 
led  to  the  alienation  of  outlying  branches  of  the  patriarchate. 
But  Servia  did  not  go  over  to  the  Latin  Church.      It  now 
became  an  independent  branch  of  the  Greek  Church,  hold- 
ing anomalous,  undefined  relations  with  the  main  body  of 
that  Church,  its  essential  union  with  which,  as  in  other  and 
similar    cases,    was    guaranteed    by    its    orthodoxy.       One 
hundred  years  of  struggle  and  two  hundred  years  of  power 
and  prosperity  were  followed  by  the  ruin  of  Servia  and  the 
death  of  her  king,  Lazar,  at  the  battle  of  Kossovopolje  in 
the  year  1389,  when  the  country  was  made  tributary  to 
the   Turks.      Its   total  subjugation  was  only  a  matter  of 
time,  and   this  was  completed   in   the  year   1462   by  the 
victorious  Mohammed  ii.,  when  it  became  a  Turkish  vilayet 
ruled  by  pashas.      Servia  was  now  not  only  groaning  under 
the  tyrannical  rule  of  the  Ottoman  government ;  she  was 
long  to  be  the  battle-ground  in  the  wars  between  Turkey 
and  Hungary.     After  Prince  Eugene's  victories  a  portion 
of  the  country  was  made  over  to  Austria  by  the  treaty  of 
Passarowitz  (a.d.  1718)  ;  but  twenty-one  years  later  it  was 
recovered  by  Turkey.     At  length,  in  the  year  1804,  Servia 
attained    its    liberty    in    consequence    of    an    insurrection 
headed    by   the    swineherd,  Kara     Gyorgye    {i.e.    "  Black 
George  ").     The  troubles  which  overwhelmed  Europe  during 
the  Napoleonic  wars  furnished  the  Turks  with  an  oppor- 
tunity to  recover  some  of  their  lost  ground,  and  they  again 


OUTLYINOx    BRANCHES    OF    THE    GREEK    CHURCH       353 

took  possession  of  Servia.  This  advance  of  Turkey  west- 
ward was  one  of  the  dangers  attending  those  wars  that  has 
not  been  sufficiently  appreciated.  In  Servia  the  work  of 
liberation  had  to  be  done  over  again.  On  I'alni  Sunday  iu 
the  year  1815  the  Serbs  rose  and  struck  for  liberty  a 
second  time,  their  leader  being  Milosh  Obrenovich,  After 
a  contest  of  five  years  the  sultan  was  compelled  to  grant 
autonomy.  Servia  is  now  an  independent  kingdom.  It 
will  be  well  understood  that  under  these  circumstances  she 
does  not  own  any  allegiance  to  the  patriarch  of  Constan- 
tinople. In  point  of  fact,  the  Greek  Church  in  Servia  is 
entirely  self-governing.  It  is  organised  under  a  synod  of 
bishops  presided  over  by  the  archbishop  of  Belgrade,  who 
is  the  metropolitan  of  Servia ;  and  it  is  divided  into  five 
dioceses.  There  are  forty-eight  monasteries  of  the  Oriental 
Church  in  the  country. 

The  Greek  Church  in  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  is  still 
further  removed  from  the  interference  of  Turkey  or  the 
Constantinople  authorities,  since  these  provinces  are  now 
under  Austrian  rule.  About  one-half  of  the  population  is 
of  the  orthodox  Church,  the  other  half  being  equally 
divided  between  Eoman  Catholics  and  Mohammedans, 
except  that  there  are  some  Jews.  The  orthodox  Church — 
while  at  one  with  the  Greeks  in  doctrine — is  entirely 
self-governing,  under  four  metropolitans. 

A  survey  of  the  situation  thus  produced  affords  a 
striking  illustration  of  the  essential  difference  between  the 
Eastern  and  the  Western  Churches.  No  such  detached, 
independent  churches  as  we  see  here  belonging  to  the 
orthodox  communion  would  be  possible  under  the  papacy.^ 
Eome  is  most  fearful  of  schism,  Constantinople  of  heresy. 
Eome  will  nave  no  dealings  with  a  church  that  is  not 
obedient  to  the  pope ;  Constantinople  will  send  its  chrism 
to  a  church  that  does  not  own  allegiance  to  its  patriarch, 
so  long  as   that  church   is  strictly  orthodox.     Individual 

'  Although  the  popes  allow  the  Oriental  Uniats  to  use  their  own 
liturgies  and  to  follow  many  peculiar  local  customs,  thia  is  all  in  submisaiou 
to  the  papacy. 

23 


354  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

patriarchs  have  excommunicated  insubordinate  bishops — as 
in  the  case  of  the  Bulgarian  exarch.  That  is  only  natural ; 
for  even  pii,triar(;lis  are  men.  But  the  Church  as  a  whole 
admits  the  Christianity  of  all  the  orthodox  in  its  several 
brapches,  and  the  transmission  of  the  holy  oil — a  thing 
impossible  in  the  West — is  a  pleasing  sign  of  this  admis- 
sion. That  is  so  in  spite  of  many  racial  quarrels  and 
partisan  differences,  which  after  all  only  lie  on  the  surface 
and  do  not  break  the  bonds  of  the  deep-seated  union  of  the 
holy  orthodox  Church. 


DIVISION    III 

THE    KUSSIAN    CHUECH 


CHAPTER   I 
THE   ORIGIN   OF  CHRISTIANITY   IN   RUSSIA 

(a)  Nestor,    and    later    Chroniclers  ;      French     translations    by 

L.  Leger,  1884. 

(b)  Mouravieff,  Hist,  of  the  Russian  Gh%irch,  English  trans.,  1842  ; 

Ralston,  Early  Russian  History,  1874  ;  Morfill,  Russia 
("Story  of  the  Nations"),  4th  edit.,  1890;  Histories  in 
Russian  Language  :  Karamzin,  Ustrialov,  Sergius  Soloviev, 
Bestryhev-Riumin,  etc. 

After  the  fall  of  Constantinople  in  the  year  1453  the 
centre  of  gravity  of  Oriental  Christianity  gradually  moves 
northwards.  The  process  is  slow,  at  first  imperceptible, 
occupying  one  or  two  centuries,  and  only  to  be  recognised 
as  continuous  and  ultimate  by  after  reflection.  Never- 
theless it  is  now  the  chief  outstanding  fact  in  the  history 
of  the  Eastern  Churches.  The  Sclav  supersedes  the  Greek 
as  the  dominant  race  in  Eastern  Christendom  ;  Moscow 
takes  the  primacy  so  long  held  by  Constantinople  ;  Russia 
becomes  the  most  important  part  of  the  holy  orthodox 
Church  and  the  protector  of  the  Christians  in  the  Ottoman 
Empire. 

"  The  conversion  of  Eussia  by  the  Greek  Church,"  says 
Mr.  Hore,  "  is  the  mightiest  conquest  the  Christian  Church 
has  ever  made  since  the  time  of  the  apostles."  ^  When  we 
recollect  what  the   conversion  of  the  Teutonic  races  has 

'  Eighteen  Centuries  of  the  Orthodox  Cheek  Church,  p.  7. 
8S6 


356  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

meant  to  Europe  and  America  and  the  world  generally,  we 
may  hesitate  to  accept  this  unqualified  assertion.  But  if 
we  confine  our  attention  to  the  East,  it  is  safe  to  admit  it 
as  true  within  that  area. 

The  vast  area  of  Europe  now  known  as  Eussia  is  peopled 
mainly  by  a  Sclavonic  race  belonging  to  the  Indo-Germanic, 
or  Aryan,  stock,  but  with  a  considerable  admixture  of  Fin- 
nish and  Scandinavian  elements  from  the  north-west,  and 
Mongolians  from  the  east.  Most  of  the  names  that  occur 
in  the  early  legendary  history  are  of  a  Scandinavian  type. 
The  very  name  Eussia,  formerly  traced  to  the  Ehoxolani 
who  prove  to  be  an  Iranian  people,  is  now  generally 
identified  with  the  Finnish  Euotsi,  the  name  given  by  the 
Finns  to  the  Swedes,  and  is  supposed  to  be  a  corruption  of 
part  of  a  word  meaning  "  rowers  "  ^ — representing  seafaring 
men,  Vikings  of  the  north,  therefore  people  who  had 
drifted  far  from  the  scenes  of  their  ancestry. 

Eussia  was  late  in  coming  into  contact  with  civilisation. 
The  name  "  Scythian "  was  vaguely  used  by  the  Greeks 
for  the  people  north  of  the  Euxine,  but  little  was  known  of 
them.  The  Eussian  records  begin  with  the  chronicle  attri- 
buted to  Nestor,  a  monk  born  about  a.d.  1056,  who  lived 
at  Kiev  and  died  about  a.d.  1114,  so  that  his  time  coincides 
with  the  beginning  of  the  Norman  period  in  England  and 
the  conquest  of  the  Seljuk  Turks  in  Armenia.  He  is 
regarded  as  the .  Livy  or  Herodotus  of  Eussia,  the  father 
of  its  history,  the  writer  who  collects  the  legends  of 
antiquity  and  brings  the  story  down  to  the  period  of 
authentic  history ;  but  more  is  attributed  to  this  cele- 
brated monk  than  is  now  allowed  to  be  his  own  work. 
Still  Nestor  is  the  first  of  the  chroniclers.  Here,  then,  we 
are  more  than  a  thousand  years  after  tlie  time  of  Christ 
before    we    come    upon   any    record    of    Eussian    history.^ 

'  Rothsmenn  or  Rothskarlar. 

^  The  earliest  date  that  can  be  assigned  to  the  first  redaction  of  the 
so-called  "  Chronicle  of  Nestor"  is  a.d.  1000  ;  but  in  its  present  form  it 
cannot  be  earlier  than  a.d.  1377,  the  date  of  the  oldest  MS.,  which  was 
written  by  a  monk  named  Laureutius  in  Suzdalj.     The  q^iustions  of  the 


THE    ORIGIN    OF    CHRISTIANITY    IN    RUSSIA       357 

Nevertheless  the  Eussian  Church  claims  an  apostolic  origin. 
Did  not  Eusebius  say  that  "  Andrew  received  Scythia  "  ?  ^ 
Out  of  this  vague  statement  has  grown  the  tradition  that 
the  apostle  founded  the  Church  at  Kiev,  planting  the  cross 
on  the  spot  where  the  cathedral  now  stands.  Nestor's 
traditional  history  of  Christianity  in  Russia  only  carries 
this  back  to  the  end  of  the  ninth  century,  where  we  may 
see  the  actual  beginning  of  the  Eussian  Church. 

According  to  tradition,  the  first  Russians  to  embrace 
Christianity  were  two  princes  of  Kiev,  Oskold  and  Dir,  who 
invaded  the  Byzantine  Empire  in  the  year  866,  and  even 
succeeded  in  bringing  up  their  warships  under  the  very 
walls  of  Constantinople,  when  the  patriarch  Photius  raised 
a  storm  which  wrecked  the  vessels,  by  plunging  the  virginal 
robe  of  the  mother  of  God  into  the  sea,  a  miracle  which 
resulted  in  the  conversion  of  the  pirates.^  The  hymn  of 
victory  which  concludes  the  office  for  the  first  hour  in  the 
daily  matins  of  the  Greek  Church  is  said  to  celebrate  this 
triumph.  It  is  addressed  to  the  Virgin  Mary  as  a  victorious 
general.^  The  two  converts  are  said  to  have  carried  the 
Christian  faith  back  with  them  to  Eussia,  and  to  have 
spread  it  in  their  dominions.  According  to  Constautine 
Porphyrogenitus,  who  is  followed  by  other  Greek  analysts, 
a  missionary  bishop  was  sent  to  the  Eussians  by  the  emperor 
Basil  the  Macedonian  (a.d.  867-886)  and  the  patriarch 
Ignatius,  and  made  many  converts  among  them.  Then 
among  the  Sees  subject  to  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople 
in  Codinus's  catalogue  the  metropolitan  See  of  Eussia  appears 
as  early  as  the  year  891.  Further,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
Goths,  Sclavs  serving   in  the  imperial  army  adopted  the 

origin,  sources,  and  dates  of  Nestor's  chronicle  are  critically  discussed  in 
Die  Entstehung  Der  AUesten  Russischen  Sogenannten  Nestorchronik,  by 
Dr.  Stjepan  Sakulj,  1896. 

1  Hist.  Ecd.  iii.  1.  ^  Nestor,  i. 

*  The  following  are  the  words  of  this  curious  hymn,  or  rather  anthem  : 
Tg  VTrepfidxv  ffrpar-qyu}  rb.  viKr]Tripia,  ojs  XvrpusdivTei  rCiv  deivQv,  (vxo-P'-'JTripia. 
dvaypdcpo/j.ei'  oi  dovXoi  <70V  QeoKOKe,  'AXX'  (hs  ?x'>^°'°-  '''^  Kpdroi  dirpoatxdxrirov, 
iK  iravTcidiv  r]fids  Kivbvvuv  iXevdepuiaov  iva  Kpd^iiSfiiv  <roi  X^^P^  vu{x,<p7]  dfVfKpevre, 
Ad|a,  Kai  vvv. 


358  THE    PxREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

religion  of  the  empire.  About  the  year  870,  or  a  little 
earlier,  two  Greek  brothers,  Cyril  and  Methodius,  carried 
OQ  successful  missionary  work  among  the  Sclavonic  tribes  of 
the  Danube  in  and  near  Moravia,  and  translated  the  Bible, 
or  at  least  part  of  the  New  Testament,  into  the  Sclavonic 
language,  for  which,  like  Ulfilas  with  his  Gothic  version, 
they  had  to  construct  an  alphabet.  This  was  subsequently 
brought  into  Eussia,  where  it  helped  to  further  the  spread 
of  Christianity.^  Thus  it  would  seem  that  in  various  ways 
Christianity  was  penetrating  into  Eussia  during  the  ninth 
century,  although  little  credence  may  be  given  to  the 
legends,  with  their  accompanying  marvels,  which  offer  to 
describe  the  process. 

.  We  come  upon  firmer  ground  when  we  reach  the 
traditions  contained  in  the  chronicle  of  Nestor  concerning 
the  introduction  of  Christianity  into  Eussia  by  the  Princess 
Olga  and  her  son  Vladimir.  Eurik,  a  Norseman  who  had 
first  settled  at  Novgorod,  one  of  the  oldest  towns  in  Eussia, 
followed  the  course  of  common  migration  among  his  people, 
and  travelled  in  a  south-easterly  direction  till  he  reached 
Kiev,  where  he  established  himself  and  founded  the  State 
which  subsequently  expanded  into  the  Eussian  Empire.^ 
Dying  in  the  year  879,  Eurik  entrusted  his  son  Igor  to  a 
chieftain  named  Gleg,  who  found  him  a  wife  in  the  person 
of  Olga.  This  Princess  Olga  was  the  real  founder  of 
Eussian  Christianity.  After  the  death  of  her  husband  she 
ruled  his  State  during  the  minority  of  her  son  Sviatoslaff. 
If  we  are  to  accept  the  story  preserved  by  Nestor  we  must 
see  that  Christianity  was  not  then  unknown  at  Kiev,  because 
it  tells  how  the  princess  went  to  Constantinople  for  the 
express  purpose  of  learning  about  the  true  God ;  there  she 

^  Since  the  fourteenth  century  this  version  has  undergone  many  revisions, 
apparently  with  the  object  of  modernising  it.  The  oldest  MS.  of  the  whole 
Bible  is  dated  a.d.  1499.  There  are  many  MSS.  of  the  New  Testament  of 
•widely  different  recensions,  some  few  as  old  as  the  eleventh,  or  even  the 
tenth,  century,  among  which  is  an  Evangelistarium  dated  1056.  See 
Scrivener,  Introduction  to  the  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament,  4th  edit., 
vol.  ii.  pp.  158-161. 

^  Nestor,  iL 


THE    ORIGIN    OF    CHRISTIANITY    IN    RUSSIA       359 

was  baptised  by  the  patriarch  Polyeuctes,  having  the 
emperor,  Constantine  Porphyrogenitus,  for  her  godfather. 
Olga  became  famous  both  for  her  wisdom  and  for  her 
saintliness.  "  She  was  the  forerunner  of  Christianity  in 
Eussia,"  says  Nestor,  "  as  the  morning  star  is  the  precursor 
of  the  sun  and  the  dawn  the  precursor  of  the  day.  As  the 
moon  shines  at  midnight,  she  shone  in  the  midst  of  a  pagan 
people.  She  was  hke  a  pearl  amid  dirt,  for  the  people  were 
in  the  mire  of  their  sins  and  not  yet  purified  by  baptism. 
She  purified  herself  in  a  holy  bath,  and  removed  the  garb 
of  sin  of  the  old  man  Adam."  ^ 

Olga's  fierce,  warlike  son  Sviatoslaff  never  submitted 
to  the  yoke  of  Christ ;  but  he  so  far  yielded  to  his 
mother's  influence  as  to  allow  the  open  profession  of 
Christianity  among  his  people.  In  fact,  very  little  per- 
secution attended  the  introduction  of  the  gospel  into 
Eussia,  which  in  this  respect  was  a  noble  exception  to  the 
usual  experience  among  pagan  nations.  The  chronicle  only 
mentions  two  Christian  martyrs  during  this  period  of  the 
early  evangelising  of  Eussia,  Theodore  and  John,  who  were 
put  to  death  by  the  rage  of  the  people  because  one  of  them 
refused  to  give  up  his  son  as  a  sacrifice  to  Perun,  the 
Sclavonic  god  of  thunder. 

Sviatoslaff  was  killed  in  an  ambush  laid  by  the  Pechenegs, 
a  Mongolian  tribe  who  had  invaded  Eussia,  and  his  skull 
was  made  into  a  drinking-cup.  Thus  perished  the  last 
pagan  prince  of  the  small  territory  out  of  which  was 
destined  to  grow  the  vast  empire  of  Eussia.  He  had 
foolishly  divided  his  dominion  between  his  three  sons, 
whose  quarrels  soon  left  only  Vladimir,  the  third  son,  to 
whom  his  father  had  bequeathed  Novgorod.  This  prince 
proved  to  be  a  strong  man,  who  not  only  seized  all  the 
territory  that  had  been  assigned  to  his  brothers,  but  added 
Galicia  or  "  Eed  Eussia."  His  name  is  of  great  importance 
in  Church  history,  because  he  proved  to  be  the  Constantine 
of  the  Eussian  Empire.  He  not  only  adopted  Christianity 
for  himself,  but  he  made  it  the  State  religion.     Thus  almost 

1  Nestor,  tL 


360  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

from   the   beginning   the    Church   in   Kussia   was   a  State 
Church. 

The  traditional  story  of  the  conversion  of  Vladimir 
preserved  by  the  chronicler  ^  has  the  picturesque  character 
of  an  early  legend.  We  must  give  the  first  place  to  the 
influence  of  his  grandmother,  the  capable  and  saintly  Olga. 
Although  she  had  brought  him  up  in  the  truth  of  Christ, 
like  Augustine,  who  had  been  privileged  with  the  incompar- 
able training  of  his  mother  Monica,  Vladimir  drifted  away 
from  the  early  influence  when  he  attained  to  manhood  and 
the  absorbing  interests  of  ambition.  Still,  as  we  follow  the 
tradition,  which  has  nothing  improbable  in  this  respect, 
we  learn  that  he  was  not  satisfied  with  the  religion  of  his 
fathers.  It  represents  how  one  after  the  other  various 
parties  press  their  religion  upon  hira.  First  come  the 
Mohammedans  of  Bulgaria,  whose  regulations  he  does  not 
choose  to  comply  with ;  next  the  Jews,  boasting  of  the 
ancient  glory  of  Jerusalem.  "  But  wliere  is  your  country  ?  " 
asks  the  prince.  "  It  was  ruined  by  the  wrath  of  God  for  the 
sins  of  our  fathers,"  they  answer.  Vladimir  will  not  accept 
the  religion  of  a  people  whom  their  God  has  abandoned. 
Then  come  theologians  from  Germany  with  the  Koman 
religion ;  but  this  is  rejected  as  different  from  the  religion 
of  Constantinople  in  which  Olga  instructed  her  grandson. 
A  philosopher  of  the  Greek  faith,  the  monk  Constantine, 
has  a  better  reception  as  he  exposes  the  defects  of  other 
religions  and  eloquently  expounds  the  Christian  faith,  and 
he  is  sent  away  loaded  with  presents.  The  story  goes  on 
to  describe  the  extraordinarily  cautious  methods  further 
employed  by  Vladimir  in  the  choice  of  a  religion.  He 
discusses  the  question  with  his  council,  which  decides  to  send 
(iommissioners,  consisting  of  boyars — nobles  of  the  highest 
rank — to  make  their  observations  of  each  religion  on  the 
spot.  The  authorities  at  Constantinople  see  their  oppor- 
tunity. The  patriarcli  celebrates  the  Divine  liturgy  in 
St.  Sophia  with  the  utmost  possible  magnificence  in  the 
presence  of  the  awed  and  astonished  visitors  from  Eussia. 
^  Nestor,  viii. 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   CHRISTIANITY    IN    RUSSIA       361 

If  this  is  a  genuine  tradition  it  describes  a  wonderful  case 
of  open-minded  truth-seeking,  justly  rewarded  with  success. 

On  their  return  to  Kiev  the  commissioners  presented  the 
report  of  the  results  of  their  investigations  to  Vladimir. 
They  were  not  attracted  by  the  Mohammedan  worship  of 
the  Bulgarians,  nor  did  they  take  to  the  Latin  rites  they 
witnessed  in  Germany.  But  they  brought  back  a  glow- 
ing account  of  what  they  had  witnessed  in  the  great 
cathedral  at  Constantinople,  saying,  "  When  we  stood  in  the 
temple  we  did  not  know  where  we  were,  for  there  is  nothing 
else  like  it  upon  earth  :  there  in  truth  God  has  His  dwelling 
with  men ;  and  we  can  never  forget  the  beauty  we  saw 
there.  No  one  who  has  once  tasted  sweets  will  afterwards 
take  that  which  is  bitter;  nor  can  we  now  any  longer 
abide  in  heathenism."^  This  was  before  the  sack  of 
Constantinople  by  the  Frankish  and  Venetian  brigands  in 
the  so-called  fourth  Crusade.  St.  Sophia  was  still  in  its 
pristine  glory  before  the  barbarians  had  stripped  it  of  its 
most  magnificent  decorations.  These  astonished  ambas- 
sadors from  the  rude  north  found  themselves  in  what 
was  probably  the  finest  building  in  the  world  and  certainly 
the  richest  product  of  Byzantine  art.  Wherever  they 
turned  their  eyes  they  saw  gold,  silver,  precious  stones, 
mosaic  pictures,  covering  the  whole  surface  of  its  walls 
and  its  wonderful  soaring  domes,  while  the  elaborate  brocaded 
vestments  of  the  priests  and  the  slow  moving  pomp  of  the 
service  harmonised  with  the  scene  of  surpassing  magni- 
ficence.    They  were  completely  conquered. 

It  would  seem  then  that  where  argument  had  failed 
ceremonial  had  succeeded,  that  what  the  monk  had  not  been 
able  to  effect  by  his  verbal  exposition  of  doctrine  the 
patriarch  had  triumphantly  accompHshed  by  the  pomp  and 
ceremony  of  a  sumptuous  ritual.  Perhaps  it  would  be  more 
just  to  say  that  the  emotional  impression  of  the  solemn 
service  at  Constantinople  confirmed  the  iatellectual  con- 
clusions which  had  preceded  it  at  Kiev.  Be  that  as  it  may, 
the  fact  is  not  a  little  significant  that  a  religion  which 

1  Ibid. 


362  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN   CHURCHES 

consists  so  largely  in  ceremonies  should  have  been  intro- 
duced most  effectively  into  the  country  of  its  most  ex- 
tensive missionary  triumphs  under  the  influence  of  an 
impressive  ceremony.  Happily  an  inducement  of  a  higher 
order  is  added  as  the  final  consideration  which  decided  the 
cautious  prince  to  decide  for  Christianity.  The  commis- 
sioners appealed  to  the  memory  of  his  grandmother  Olga, 
saying,  that  if  the  religion  of  the  Greeks  hud  not  been  good 
she  would  not  have  embraced  it.  Vladimir  was  convinced, 
and  simply  asked,  "  Where  shall  we  be  baptised." 

Another  story,  if  it  is  more  than  a  saga,  does  not  show 
us  his  conversion  in  so  pleasing  a  light.  It  would  appear 
that  Vladimir  was  besieging  the  Tauric  town  Cherson,  then 
subject  to  the  Greek  Empire,  when  a  traitorous  priest 
within  the  walls  sent  him  a  note  by  means  of  an  arrow, 
informing  him  that  the  way  to  take  the  city  was  to  cut  off 
its  water  supply  in  the  aqueduct.  The  prince  vowed  that 
if  he  succeeded  in  taking  the  town  he  would  be  baptised, 
for  was  not  his  friend  the  priest  a  Christian  ?  He  took  the 
town  and  kept  his  vow.  Nevertheless,  after  his  conversion 
Vladimir  remained  a  gross,  cruel  sensualist,  wading  through 
blood  to  debauchery.  He  must  have  had  great  power  at 
this  time,  for  he  was  able  to  force  the  Emperor  Basil  to  send 
him  Anna,  the  emperor's  sister,  for  his  bride.  The  princess 
seems  to  have  gone  willingly,  with  the  desire  of  carrying  her 
religion  into  heathen  Eussia.  Vladimir  was  both  baptised 
and  married  at  Cherson  (a.d.  988),  after  which  he  restored 
the  city  to  the  Greek  Empire.  Thus  again  a  Christian 
woman  sat  at  the  head  of  the  Russian  court  and  used  her 
high  influence  to  bring  the  people  over  to  her  faith.  Anna 
had  a  much  better  opportunity  than  Olga.  The  ruler's 
grandmother  had  sown  the  seed ;  his  wife  reaped  the 
harvest.  In  the  interval  of  the  two  generations  mis- 
sionaries had  been  pouring  over  into  Eussia  from  the 
Byzantine  Empire.  Thus  we  may  believe  that  Christianity 
was  already  working  like  leaven  in  the  community,  slowly 
permeating  th&  mass,  before  the  prince  adopted  it  and  pro- 
claimed it  as  his  own  and  the  national  religion.     This  fact 


THE    ORIGIN   OF    CHRISTIANITY    IN    RUSSIA       363 

renders  tlie  action  of  Vladimir  entirely  diClerent  from  thai 
of  Clovis  when  he  forced  the  Franks  to  follow  him  in 
adopting  his  newly  accepted  religion.  This  was  indeed 
a  great  missionary  era.  It  has  been  reckoned  as  part  of 
the  Dark  Ages ;  but  that  judgment  only  applies  to  Western 
Europe.  This  period  saw  the  spread  of  the  gospel  over 
Bulgaria,  Hungary,  Bohemia,  Saxony,  Denmark,  Norway, 
Sweden,  Poland,  and  lastly,  to  a  considerable  extent  over 
Eussia. 

We  must  not,  therefore,  regard  it  as  a  mere  act  of 
subserviency  to  tyranny,  that  on  the  demand  of  their  master 
multitudes  of  the  citizens  of  Kiev  with  their  wives  and 
children  flocked  to  the  Dnieper,  and  there  received  baptism 
from  the  Greek  priests  who  had  come  over  to  welcome 
them  into  the  Church.  Still,  the  impressiveness  and 
sincerity  of  the  scene  must  have  been  maimed  by  the  ugly 
threat  which  accompanied  the  prince's  invitation,  for  he 
had  issued  a  proclamation  on  the  day  before  the  ceremony, 
that  "  whoever,  on  the  morrow,  should  not  repair  to  the 
river,  whether  rich  or  poor,  he  should  hold  him  for  an 
enemy." 

The  acceptance  of  Christianity  by  Vladimir  and  his 
people  from  Constantinople  opened  the  way  for  intercom- 
munication between  Eussia  and  the  Byzantine  Empire. 
Commerce  followed  the  gospel.  Art  and  culture  came  in 
its  train.  A  Christian  civilisation  now  began  to  spread 
slowly  through  Eussia.  The  consequence  was  that  in  the 
course  of  the  next  century  this  country,  which  we  are 
now  accustomed  to  think  of  as  the  most  backward  of 
European  nations,  became  more  advanced  than  Germany 
or  even  France.  She  took  a  foremost  place  in  the  early 
part  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Byzantine  culture  was  now  at 
its  height  and  incomparably  superior  to  the  rude  condition 
of  the  Western  nations ;  and  Eussia  now  came  in  for  a 
share  of  this  rich  civiHsation.  This  was  seen  most  evidently 
in  the  erection  of  churches,  which  Vladimir  zealously  carried 
on  throughout  the  towns  and  villages  of  his  dominions. 
Like  Eameses  ii.  in  Eygpt,  like  Hadrian  and  Constantine  and 


364  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHUPSHES 

Justinian  in  the  lioiujin  Empire,  Vladinixr  gave  himself 
enthusiastically  to  huikling  operations,  and  le?t  his  mark  on 
liis  country  for  all  time  in  the  lasting  records  of  public 
architecture.  His  first  building  was  th  j  church  of  St.  Basil 
at  Kiev,  planted  on  the  very  mound  that  had  formerly  been 
sacred  to  the  god  Perun,  and  from  which  the  national 
deity's  image  had  been  hurled  down  in  the  enthusiasm  of 
the  popular  conversion.  These  churches  were  all  of  the 
Byzantine  order,  although  subsequently  the  style  was 
Orientalised,  being  modified  under  Persian,  and  much  more 
under  Mongolian  influences,  to  which  are  to  be  attributed 
its  characteristic  bulbous  domes. 

But  Vladimir  was  more  than  a  church  builder.  He 
saw  that  his  churches  were  supplied  with  priests ;  he  also 
established  schools  and  eagerly  promoted  the  education  of 
the  children  of  the  boyars.  The  bishops,  not  less  zealous 
in  pushing  forward  their  missionary  enterprises,  penetrated 
into  the  interior  of  Russia  as  far  as  the  cities  of  Rostofi'  and 
Novgorod,  so  that  Christianity  was  rapidly  spread  over  a 
considerable  area  of  Prussia.  This  however  must  be  rcQ-arded 
as  little  more  than  the  scattering  of  seed  broadcast.  More- 
over, seeing  that  it  was  done  in  some  degree  as  a  measure 
of  State  policy,  it  must  have  been  characterised  at  first  by 
the  superficiality  which  is  always  seen  in  missionary  work 
carried  on  with  the  aid  of  this  tempting  but  delusive  assist- 
ance. Neither  Constantine,  nor  Clovis,  nor  Vladimir  could 
really  convert  a  nation  by  court  influence. 

This  new  Christian  movement  in  Russia,  which  had 
originated  in  Constantinople,  continued  for  a  considerable 
time  to  look  to  the  Greek  capital  for  its  sustenance  and 
guidance.  Michael,  a  Syrian  by  birth,  is  reckoned  the  first 
metropolitan  in  Russia  ;  he  died  before  the  cathedral  at 
Kiev  was  completed,  and  was  succeeded  by  a  Greek  named 
Leontius,  whom  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople  had 
appointed.  In  the  year  993,  Leontius  solemnly  conse- 
crated the  building,  and  Vladimir  celebrated  the  occasion 
by  making  a  grant  to  the  Church  out  of  all  dues  and 
fines,  customs   and  taxes,  crops   and  cattle  throughout  his 


THE   ORIGIN    OF    CHRISTIANITY    IN    RUSSIA       365 

dominion.^  For  this  reason  the  cathedral  was  called  "  The 
Church  of  the  Tithes."  ^  The  care  of  the  building  and  the 
charge  of  the  funds  were  entrusted  to  the  priest  Auastasius, 
whom  Vladimir  had  brought  from  Cherson.  From  Greece 
also  came  the  canons  of  the  councils  and  the  Greek  laws  for 
Church  government.  But  from  the  first  it  was  maintained 
that  the  Scriptures  constituted  the  basis  of  Christian  life 
and  doctrine ;  and  encouragement  was  given  to  the  reading 
and  study  of  the  Bible.  This  characteristic  of  the  Greek 
Church  in  contradistinction  from  the  Eoman  passed  over 
into  the  Eussian  Church,  and  is  one  of  its  happiest  features. 
Vladimir  distinctly  promised  in  his  edict  of  the  tithes 
—  which  might  be  called  the  Magna  Charta  or  the  "  Bill  of 
Eights  "  of  the  Eussian  Church — that  neither  he  nor  any 
of  his  descendants  shall  ever  cite  members  of  the  clergy, 
their  wives,  monks  or  nuns,  before  the  State  tribunals,  or 
usurp  the  judicial  power  which  has  been  conceded  to  the 
Church.  After  enumerating  a  list  of  offences  which  he 
leaves  the  Church  to  deal  with — such  as  divorce,  poisoning, 
witchcraft,  heresy,  family  wrongs — he  adds  :  "  In  all  these 
cases  the  Church  is  to  pass  judgment ;  but  the  prince  and 
his  boyars  and  judges  shall  not  take  cognisance  of  such 
judicial  m.atters.  These  ecclesiastical  privileges  I  have 
accorded  to  the  holy  bishops,  in  compliance  with  the 
decisions  of  the  Church,  and  the  seven  oecumenical 
councils."^  Most  of  this  only  applies  to  clerical  offenders. 
In  the  case  of  a  judicial  matter  between  an  ecclesiastic  and 

*  Modern  missionary  work,  being  voluntary  and  resting  on  free-will  offer- 
ings, is  frequently  crippled  for  lack  of  funds.  When  one  enquires  how  the 
missionary  activity  of  earlier  times  was  maintained  various  answers  have' to 
be  given.  Most  of  the  evangelisation  of  the  "West  was  carried  on  by  monks 
whose  wants  were  sujiplied  by  their  own  monasteries,  or  who  worked  for  bare 
subsistence  in  their  new  homes  or  accepted  gifts  from  their  converts.  But 
under  State  religions  State  funds  supported  the  work.  This  was  the  case  in 
Russia.  Of  course  government  support  had  to  be  paid  for  in  government 
control,  although  this  was  subject  to  a  distinct  right  of  the  Church  to 
administer  its  own  canon  law. 

2  Dessatingya. 

*  A  copy  of  riie  edict,  contained  in  a  codex  of  the  thirteenth  century, 
is  tnven  in  full  by  Mouravieff,  Hist.,  Notes,  pp.  357,  358. 


366  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

a  layman  the  tribunal  is  to  be  mixed,  partly  civil  and  partly 
ecclesiastical.  Further,  the  State  shall  interfere  to  punish 
anybody  who  infringes  the  judicial  rights  of  the  Church. 

Here  then  we  see  a  Church  established  by  the  civil 
authority,  endowed  with  State  funds,  privileged  to  govern 
itself  and  discipline  its  clergy  and  other  ecclesiastical  persons, 
and  granted  immunity  from  interference  in  the  exercise 
of  its  rights  and  privileges.  As  yet  there  was  no  idea  of 
the  supremacy  of  the  head  of  the  State  in  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church,  such  as  has  subsequently  come  about 
in  the  person  of  the  tsar.  Vladimir's  edict  offered  the 
Russian  Church  greater  freedom  than  the  Greek  Church 
enjoyed  under  the  Byzantine  emperors.  Everything  de- 
pended on  the  degree  of  respect  shown  to  the  spirit  as  well 
as  to  the  letter  of  this  fundamental  charter  of  the  Church. 
Now  it  became  customary  for  the  bishop  of  each  district  to 
be  selected  by  the  prince  of  that  district.  Theoretically 
that  was  not  in  accordance  with  canon  law  ;  and  practically 
it  gave  great  power  to  the  civil  governor,  who  of  course 
would  be  likely  only  to  nominate  a  candidate  who  was 
persona  grata  to  himself.  Then  every  bishop  had  the  right 
to  appoint  the  priests,  deacons,  and  inferior  church  officers 
in  his  diocese,  and  also  the  archimandrites  {i.e.  the  abbots 
and  abbesses)  of  the  religious  houses.  Thus  a  firm  hand  was 
kept  on  the  personnel  of  the  Church,  even  though  liberty 
was  granted  it  in  the  exercise  of  its  guaranteed  functions. 

In  the  pursuit  of  his  missionary  enterprises  the  metro- 
politan Leontius  formed  five  dioceses — the  first  five  in 
Russia — namely,  Chernigoff,  near  Kiev,  Novgorod  in  the 
north,  Belgrod  and  Vladimir  far  in  the  north-east,  and 
Rostoff  still  farther  off  in  the  same  direction.  These  were 
not  equally  successful.  At  the  ancient  city  of  Novgorod, 
from  which  the  ruling  family  had  migrated  to  Kiev, 
Joachim  of  Cherson,  the  newly  appointed  bishop,  was  able 
to  take  the  daring  action  of  throwing  the  statue  of  the 
national  god  Rerun  into  the  river,  without  meeting  any 
opposition  on  the  part  of  the  inhabitants.^     On   the  other 

*  Nestor,  viii. 


THE    ORIGIN    OF    CHRISTIANITY    IN    RUSSIA       367 

hand,  the  first  two  bishops  of  Kostoff  were  (hiven  away  by 
the  fierce  tribes  from  the  surrounding  forests.  Now,  as  on 
other  occasions,  we  find  the  most  enlightened  people  and 
those  most  in  touch  with  the  central  life  of  the  nation 
quickest  to  receive  the  new  message,  while  the  remote 
inhabitants  of  lonely  places — the  "  heath-men,"  as  our 
ancestors  called  them — are  slowest  to  abandon  their  pagan 
habits. 

Vladimir  repeated  his  father's  mistake  in  dividing  his 
territory  among  his  sons,  with  the  same  disastrous  conse- 
quences.     The  result  was  that  his  death  in  the  year  1015 
was   followed   by  a  period  of  disorder.     In  the   end  the 
supreme    power  was   secured  by  Yasolaf,  the   eldest  son, 
who  had  received  Novgorod  in  his  father's  partition.      He 
appeared   as   the    avenger   of  his  two  brothers  Boris  and 
Gled,  who,  it  is  said,  had  been  murdered  by  another  brother 
Sviatopolk  while  in  the  act  of  prayer,  so  that  they  have 
come  to  be  honoured  in  the  Church  as  Christian  martyrs. 
Sviatopolk    had    seized    Kiev ;  but    Yasolaf    succeeded  in 
driving  him  into  exile,  and  so  came  into  possession  of  the 
southern  capital.     He  ruled  as  a  Christian  prince,  and  his 
name  is  famous  as  that  of  the  founder  of  the  Russian  code 
of  laws.^     His  long  reign  was  prosperous,  and  it  saw  a 
continuous    spread  of   missionary   activity  throughout  his 
dominions.     Yasolaf    not    only  confirmed    the  charter    of 
rights  which  his  father  had  conferred  on  the  Church ;  he 
went  further,  and  granted  ecclesiastical  personages  exemp- 
tion from    all   civil   duties  and   payments.     This  was   in 
accordance  with  precedents  set  by  Constantine  and  Con- 
stantius    in  the    Eoman    Empire.      He    took    a    personal 
interest  in  the   study  and   translation  of    Greek    Church 
writers,  of  whose  works  he  collected  a  library  at  Kiev.     At 
the  same  time   he  established  schools  for  the  training  of 
candidates  for  the  clerical  office  at  the  two  chief  towns — 
Kiev  and  Novgorod.     Like  his  father,  Yasolaf  distinguished 
himself  and  immortalised  his  name  by  church  building. 
Earlier  in  this  reign  a  prince  named  Mistislief  built 

^  Known  as  Rasskaya  Pravada  (Eussiau  Law). 


'AGS  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

St.  Saviour's  Church  at  Chernigoff.  This  is  reckoned 
the  oldest  church  now  standing  in  Eussia.  Yasolaf 
himself  put  up  at  Kiev  the  metropolitan  cathedral, 
which  he  named  St.  Sophia,  after  Justinian's  glorious 
temple,  the  ideal  of  all  Greek  and  Eussian  churches.  His 
son  Vladimir  built  a  second  church  of  St.  Sophia  in 
Novgorod.  Thus  Eussia  had  two  modest  copies  of  the 
famous  Byzantine  basilica — one  in  each  of  his  capitals. 
The  metropolitan  Theopemptus — the  first  Eussian  metro- 
politan named  by  Nestor — came  to  consecrate  the  Kiev 
St.  Sophia.  On  his  death  (a.d.  1051)  occurred  the  first 
ecclesiastical  breach  with  Constantinople.  There  had  been 
war  between  the  governments,  in  the  course  of  which  the 
Byzantine  emperor,  Constantine  Monomachus,  the  third 
husband  of  the  notorious  Zoe,  had  put  out  the  eyes  of  some 
Eussian  prisoners.  Indignant  at  the  cruel  outrage,  Yasolaf 
summoned  the  Eussian  bishops  to  elect  a  metropolitan 
from  among  themselves  without  reference  to  the  patriarch 
of  Constantinople,  and  they  chose  Hilarion,  a  peace-loving 
man  of  devout  character,  who  was  the  first  to  move  for 
reconciliation  by  seeking  the  benediction  of  Michael 
Cerularius  the  patriarch.  This  was  granted,  and  thus  the 
brief  division  between  the  two  branches  of  the  Eastern 
Church,  the  cause  of  which  had  been  in  no  way  ecclesi- 
astical, was  healed.  The  result  of  the  reconciliation 
was  a  still  closer  connection  between  Constantinople  and 
Eussia.  The  patriarch's  authority  was  being  curtailed  and 
crippled  in  the  south  by  the  inroads  of  the  Turks  and  by 
the  distracted  condition  of  the  Byzantine  Empire,  followed 
by  attempts  of  emperors  to  effect  union  with  Eome  and 
the  Western  Church  simply  on  political  grounds,  in  order 
to  obtain  aid  in  withstanding  the  serious  danger  now 
menacing  the  empire.  At  this  very  time  a  vast  new  pro- 
vince of  Christendom  was  opening  up  in  the  north  and 
gratefully  submitting  itself  to  his  rule.  It  looked  as  though 
what  he  was  losing  so  disastrously  in  the  old  regions  of  the 
Eastern  Church  was  about  to  be  counterbalanced  by  splendid 
ac(j[uisitions  of  missionary  achievements,  first  in  Bulgaria, 


THE    ORIGIN    OF    CHRISTIANITY    IN    RUSSIA       369 

but  afterwards  and  much  more  effectually  in  Eussia.  For 
some  time  this  really  was  the  case,  and  the  See  of  the 
patriarch  of  Constantinople  became  more  extensive  than  it 
had  been  for  many  years.  Thus,  while  the  emperors  were 
losing  ground  till  they  were  at  their  wits'  end  to  see  how  to 
retain  their  throne,  the  patriarchs  were  actually  gaining  new 
provinces  and  rising  in  importance  among  the  churches 
of  the  East.  But  the  prospect  soon  darkened.  During  one 
century  Eussia  was  torn  with  internal  dissensions,  and  the 
next  century  saw  her  devastated  by  a  disastrous  Mongolian 
invasion.  By  the  time  when  she  recovered  and  the  Church 
was  again  in  a  flourishing  condition,  great  changes  had 
taken  place  at  Constantinople.  The  Latin  kingdom  and 
its  sham  patriarchate  had  come  and  gone.  Meanwhile  a 
fomidation  was  being  slowly  laid  for  a  new  patriarchate 
at  Moscow,  and  so  at  length  for  the  supremacy  of  Eussia 
over  the  orthodox  Church. 

Brilliant  as  were  the  missionary  achievements  of  this 
early  period,  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  Eussia  was 
completely  Christianised  throughout  the  length  and  breadth 
of  her  vast  territory.  The  new  movement  was  chiefly 
confined  to  the  towns,  and  there  principally  carried  on 
among  the  more  intelligent  classes.  The  mass  of  the  people 
long  remained  in  heathen  darkness  even  after  the  State 
had  provided  them  with  a  church,  to  which  they  were  forced 
to  submit  outwardly  while  they  knew  little  of  the  vital 
character  and  spirit  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  Virtually  the 
same  heathenism  has  clung  to  the  peasants  in  combination 
with  their  ignorant  notions  of  Christianity  right  down  to  our 
own  day.  It  is  only  by  recognising  this  significant  fact  that 
we  can  account  for  the  grotesque  phenomena  presented  by 
some  of  the  sects.  These  phenomena  are  the  products  of  an 
amalgam  of  ancient  Sclavonic  heathenism  with  perverted 
notions  of  Christianity.  In  the  twelfth  century  Christian 
marriage  was  only  practised  by  the  upper  classes.  The 
lower  classes  still  continued  to  follow  their  old  pagan 
rites.  When  schools  were  established  by  the  State  and  an 
attempt  was  made  to  compel  the  attendance  of  the  children, 
24 


370  THE    GREEK   AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

their  parents  wept,  regarding  literature  as  a  dangerous 
kind  of  sorcery. 

On  the  other  hand,  tlie  leaven  was  working  from  the 
lirst,  and  some  good  results  were  to  be  seen  throughout 
the  population  as  a  whole  even  in  early  times.  Polygamy 
was  abolished.  The  virtues  of  hospitality  and  philanthropy 
were  recognised.  Vladimir  Monomachus  wrote  to  his  son  : 
"  It  is  neither  fasting,  nor  solitude,  nor  the  monastic  life 
that  will  procure  you  eternal  life.  It  is  beneficence. 
Never  forget  the  poor.  Nourish  them.  Do  not  bury  your 
riches  in  the  bosom  of  the  earth.  That  is  contrary  to  the 
precepts  of  Christianity.  Serve  as  father  to  the  orphans, 
judge  to  the  widows.  Put  to  death  neither  innocent  nor 
guilty ;  for  nothing  is  more  sacred  than  the  life  and  the 
soul  of  a  Christian." 

There  grew  up  in  Eussia  a  curious  parallel  to  the 
custom  of  clinical  baptism  in  the  earlier  days  of  the  Church 
in  the  Koman  Empire,  as  in  the  case  of  the  deathbed 
baptism  of  Constantine  the  Great.  It  became  customary 
for  Eussian  princes  to  take  the  tonsure  in  the  article  of 
death.  The  tsars  would  smooth  their  passage  to  paradise 
by  dying  as  monks. 

The  only  literature  known  in  Eussia  during  these  early 
times  was  religious  or  ecclesiastical,  consisting  of  the  Bible, 
the  Fathers — especially  St.  Basil  and  St.  Chrysostom,  and 
lives  of  the  saints ;  but  some  philosophy  and  so-called 
science  were  introduced.  The  romance  of  Barlaam  and 
Josaphat  was  popular  in  Eussia,  as  elsewhere  throughout 
Christendom,  in  the  early  Middle  Ages. 


CHAPTER   II 

THE  MONGOLIAN  INVASION  OF  RUSSIA 

(Books  named  in  Chapter  I.) 

The  histoiy  of  the  foundation  and  establishment  of  the 
Church  in  Eussia  must  be  read  with  caution,  since  it  rests 
on  legends  and  traditions  from  one  or  two  centuries  before 
the  age  of  the  first  chronicles.  But  in  the  year  1073, 
Nestor,  the  traditional  father  of  Russian  history,  came  to 
the  monastery  at  Kiev.^  From  this  time  onwards  there 
are  contemporary  records.  Nestor's  own  chronicle  is  con- 
tinued to  A.D.  1113,  and  it  is  followed  by  other  chronicles. 
At  this  point,  therefore,  we  pass  from  more  or  less  un- 
certain popular  stories  of  the  early  Church  in  Russia  to 
documentary  evidence. 

At  this  very  time  we  also  enter  on  a  gloomy  period  of 
Russian  history,  consisting  of  two  troublous  centuries — first, 
the  twelfth  century,  when  Russia  was  torn  with  internecine 
strife ;  second,  the  thirteenth  century,  when  she  was  swept 
and  scoured  and  bled  almost  to  death  by  a  wave  of  invasion 
of  Tartar  tribesmen  from  the  steppes  of  central  Asia. 

In  the  midst  of  the  petty  quarrels  of  the  princelings 
who  checked  the  progress  of  their  country  by  their 
ambitions  and  jealousies,  the  Church  had  its  own  difficulties 
to  contend  with.  The  metropolitan  George,  who  had 
been  appointed  in  the  year  1072,  was  a  man  of  a  gentle, 
timorous  disposition,  and  he  retired  to  Constantinople  feel- 
ing unequal  to  his  task  in  face  of  the  troubles  of  the  times. 
The  Church  was  now  dragged  into  the  vortex  of  political 

^  Nestor,  x. 
871 


372  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

affiiirs.      The  Prince  Isyaslaff  had  been  twice  driven  from 
Kiev   by   his  brothers,  when  he   turned   for  help   to   the 
emperor,  Heury  iv.,  and  Borislaff,  King  of  Poland.      Now 
Poland  was  in  the  Eoman  Church,  and  more  than  once  this 
country  was  used  by  the  papal  party  as  their  point  of 
attack  on  the   Eussian   Church.     At  this  time   the  most 
powerful  of  all  the  popes,  Gregory  vii.,  was  dominating  the 
councils  of  the  West.     Isyaslaff  sought  the  great  pope's 
intercession  with  the  two  sovereigns.     Gregory's  reply  has 
been   preserved  among  his  letters.^      It  is  most   gracious. 
He  has  received   Isyaslaff's  son,  who  has  come  with   the 
petition,  and  who,  as  the  pope  says,  has  admitted  the  papal 
authority,  and  wishes  to  have  the  kingdom  as  a  grant  from 
Peter  through  the  pope,  asserting  that  he  makes  this  request 
with    his    father's   full   authority.^     Here   is   Hildebrand's 
high  claim  to  have  the  disposal  of  thrones  and  kingdoms 
in  his  hands,  and  his  distinct  assertion  that  it  is  admitted 
by  the  son  of  the  Prince  of  Russia,  with  his  father's  de- 
liberate consent.      We  should   like  to  have  had  the  young 
man's   version  of  the  story.      It  looks  as  though   he   had 
been  as  wax  in  the  hands  of  the  masterful  ruler  of  empires. 
If  it  were  indeed  the  case  that  he  made  this  complete  sub- 
mission on  behalf  of  Isyaslaff,  we  cannot  imagine  that  the 
bargain  would  have  been  kept ;  if  the  prince  had  secured 
his  throne  by  the  help  of  a  foreign  alliance  on  such  terms 
as  these,  he  could  only  have  held  it  as  a  tyrant  against  the 
wishes  of  his  people.      Fortunately  he  was  able  to  regain 
his  position  without  the  aid  he  had  solicited  from  abroad ; 
and  as  he  did  not  have  occasion  to  claim  his  side  of  the 
bargain,  we  are  not  surprised  that  we  hear  no  more  about 
the  other  side.      This  was  the  first  serious  attempt  of  the 
papacy  to  obtain  the  great  prize  of  Russia  for  the  see  of 
Peter. 

Of  the  next  metropolitan,  John  ii.,  who  was  appointed 

^  Baronius's  Annals,  tome  xi.  p.  472. 

^  "  Filius  vester  limina  apostolorum  visitans  ad  nos  venit,  et  quod  regnum 
illud  dono  Sancti  Petri  per  manus  nostras  vellet  obtinere,  eidem  beato  Petro 
apostolorum  Principi  debita  fidelitate  exhibita,"  etc. 


THE    MONGOLIAN    INVASION    OF    RUSSIA  373 

in  the  year  1080,  Nestor,  who  was  his  contemporary, 
exclaims,  "  There  will  never  be  his  like  again  in  Russia." 
A  learned,  charitable,  courteous,  humble  man,  he  holds 
a  conspicuous  place  among  the  early  bishops  of  Kiev. 
Another  metropolitan,  Nicolas,  came  forward  as  a  peace- 
maker at  a  time  of  civil  war,  when  Monomachus,  a  young 
prince  who  had  married  the  daughter  of  Harold,  the  last 
Saxon  king  of  England,  was  besieging  Isyaslaff  s  son,  Sviato 
polk,  at  Kiev.  A  little  later,  when  Monomachus  had  the 
upper  hand,  he  was  supported  by  an  enlightened  and 
eloquent  metropolitan,  Nicephorus. 

In  spite  of  repeated  feuds  and  frequent  disorders  in 
the  political  world,  quiet  missionary  work  was  still  going 
on.  From  Polotsk  the  gospel  now  began  to  spread  into 
Lithuania ;  from  Novgorod  it  was  carried  farther  north, 
and  Moscow  was  founded  as  the  result  of  an  effort  to  con- 
.vert  the  heathen  in  central  Russia  and  introduce  them  to 
the  civilisation  of  town  life.  The  one  bond  of  union  during 
these  troublous  times  was  the  Church  with  its  common 
faith  and  life,  and  the  chief  ministers  of  peace  were  bishops 
and  heads  of  monasteries.  It  was  fortunate  that  the 
Church  herself  was  not  now  divided.  When  a  differ- 
ence of  opinion  did  arise  from  time  to  time,  usually  it  turned 
on  some  minor  point  and  proved  to  be  only  of  a  transient 
character.  Towards  the  end  of  the  twelfth  century  we 
meet  with  a  temporary  breach  with  Constantinople,  which 
indicates  the  awakening  of  national  jealousy.  Russia  was 
still  being  supplied  with  metropolitans  from  -the  Greek 
Church,  when  a  second  Isyaslaff,  the  grandson  of  Mono- 
machus, determined  to  have  a  Russian  for  his  chief  bishop, 
urged  it.  is  said  by  dissatisfaction  with  the  conduct  of  the 
deceased  metropolitan,  Michael,  in  absenting  himself  from 
Russia.  Accordingly  he  followed  the  example  of  Yasolaff 
and  summoned  a  synod  of  Russian  bishops  at  Kiev  to  elect 
a  successor  to  Michael.  The  only  protest  was  raised  by 
Niphont,  bishop  of  Novgorod.  All  the  other  bishops 
acquiesced  in  the  daring  act  of  innovation.  It  was  in 
vain  that  Niphont  appealed  to  their  written  promise  not  to 


374  THE    GREEK  AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

celebrate  the  liturgy  in  the  church  of  St.  S(jphia  as  a  synod 
while  they  were  without  a  metropolitan.  He  was  silenced 
by  a  temporary  imprisonment  in  the  Pechersky  Monastery, 
and  the  synod  elected  Clement,  a  monk  of  Smolensk.  But 
liow  could  he  be  ordained  without  applying  to  the  patriarch 
at  Constantinople  ?  Here  was  a  serious  difficulty.  The 
bishops  found  a  way  out  of  it  by  an  ingenious  device.  In 
place  of  the  imposition  of  the  patriarch's  hand,  they  laid  on 
the  candidate's  head  the  reputed  hand  of  St.  Clement  of 
Rome,  which  was  among  the  precious  relics  that  Vladimir 
had  brought  from  Cherson.  At  a  time  when  the  corpses 
and  bones  of  saints  were  valued  as  the  greatest  of  treasures 
and  credited  with  marvellous  powers,  such  a  use  of  the 
shrivelled  hand  of  one  of  the  most  venerated  successors  of 
an  apostle  might  be  regarded  as  singularly  efficatious.  A 
curious  feature  of  the  incident  is  that  the  dead  hand  of  a 
bishop  of  Rome  is  used  to  Hout  the  claims  of  the  bishop  of  ■ 
the  rival  city  of  Constantinople.  The  quarrel  lasted  for 
nine  years.  It  got  entangled  with  the  civil  feuds,  which 
were  so  fierce  that  one  prince,  Igor,  who  had  been  sent 
to  a  monastery,  was  torn  to  pieces  by  the  populace  when 
he  reappeared  in  the  city  of  Kiev.  Soon  after  this  the 
Prince  Isyaslaff  was  forced  to  flee,  taking  Clement  with 
him.  Meanwhile  Niphont  was  despatched  to  Constanti- 
nople to  seek  a  duly  appointed  metropolitan.  The 
patriarch  Luke  was  only  too  glad  to  comply  with  so 
loyal  a  request,  and  he  consecrated  a  man  named  Con- 
stantine  as  -bishop  of  Chernigoff,  and  despatched  him  with 
all  due  qualifications  to  Kiev  (a.d.  1136).  Constantine 
proceeded  to  act  with  vigour  in  his  new  office,  condemn- 
ing the  deeds  of  the  unfortunate  Isyaslaff  and  his  metro- 
politan, Clement,  and  even  suspending  for  a  time  all  the 
clergy  whom  Clement  had  ordained.  Thus  apparently 
Russia  was  again  brought  into  ecclesiastical  submission  to 
Constantinople.  Niphont,  who  had  stood  out  as  a  solitary 
Elijah  among  the  priests  of  Baal,  an  Abdiel  in  the  midst 
of  the  all  but  universal  rebellion,  did  not  live  to  reach  Kiev 
and  enjoy  his  triumph.      But  he  had  earned  an  undying 


THE    MONGOLIAN    INVASION    OF    RUSSIA  375 

reputation  in  the  orthodox  Church,  where  he   is   reckoned 
among  the  saints  as  the  "  Defender  of  all  Eussia." 

A  turn  in  the  wheel  of  fortune  hrought  l)ack  the  opposite 
party  into  power.  Then  Constantine  was  dismissed  to  his 
original  see,  where  he  ended  his  days,  ordering  in  his  will 
that  his  body  should  be  cast  out  of  the  town  as  unworthy 
of  burial.  After  it  had  been  thus  exposed  for  three  days, 
it  was  buried  with  due  honours  in  the  church  of  St.  Saviour. 
We  may  doubt  whether  the  poor  man's  singular  command 
should  be  attributed,  as  Mouravieff  says,  to  "  extraordinary 
humility,"  ^  or  to  a  melancholy  sense  of  failure  after  his 
ambitious  mission  had  begun  so  successfully. 

Meanwhile,  of  course,  the  patriarch  did  not  recognise 
Clement,  who  had  been  restored  by  the  government  and  so 
had  renewed  the  schism.  Constantine  was  no  longer  avail- 
able. Accordingly  Luke  appointed  a  third  metropolitan, 
Theodore.  Andrew  Bogolubsky,  one  of  the  contending 
princes,  wished  him  to  make  his  own  city  of  Vladimir  the 
metropolitan  see.  He  had  built  there  the  magnificent 
church  of  the  Mother  of  God  and  deposited  in  it  a  miracle- 
working  icon  brought  from  Greece.  If  he  had  succeeded 
his  daring  policy  might  have  cut  the  knot.  Kiev  would 
have  been  left  high  and  dry  with  its  discredited  metro- 
politan, while  the  tide  of  Church  favour  flowed  to  the  new 
ecclesiastical  metropolis.  But  Luke  was  too  wise  to  agree 
to  the  proposal.  It  would  have  meant  a  serious  division  in 
the  Ptussian  Church,  not  only  between  two  parties,  but 
between  two  great  cities  and  their  surrounding  areas. 
Local  ambition  would  then  have  been  roused;  and  thus 
the  schism  would  have  been  perpetuated  long  after  any 
excuse  for  it  had  died  away.  All  that  the  patriarch  would 
do  to  honour  the  city  of  Vladimir  was  to  allow  the  bishop 
of  Eostoff  to  make  it  his  centre,  and  sanction  an  annual 
festival  in  celebration  of  the  prince's  victory  over  the 
Bulgarians  on  the  same  day  as  that  on  which  the  Emperor 
Manuel  celebrated  his  victory  over  the  Saracens,  a  festival 
ytill  observed  on  the  first  of  August.  ^ 

1  P.  37. 


376  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

But  now  the  schism  which  had  sprung  out  of  personal 
and  political  sources  was  complicated  with  a  charge  of 
heresy.  This  charge  is  significant  of  much  in  the  life  of 
the  orthodox  Church  during  the  Middle  Ages.  We  are 
familiar  with  the  grave  accusation  of  heresy  and  its  terrible 
consequences  in  the  Western  Church  ;  but  there  it  meant 
some  serious  departure  from  what  were  deemed  great 
and  vital  elements  of  the  creed.  No  such  thing  was 
seen  in  the  case  of  the  Eussian  heresy  of  the  twelfth 
century.  The  Church  was  universally  and  securely  settled 
in  its  faith.  It  had  not  sufficient  originality  of  mind  or 
intellectual  interest  to  dream  of  loosening  its  moorings  and 
entering  on  unknown  seas  of  speculation.  The  daring 
heresiarchs  of  the  East  who  have  left  their  marks  for  all 
time  on  the  course  of  the  world's  thouglit  belong  to  the 
patristic  period ;  those  met  with  later  are  of  the  Western 
Church.  The  word  heresy  has  shrunk  to  much  narrower 
limits  within  the  safe  orthodoxy  of  the  later  Greek  and 
Eussian  Church.  Nestor,  the  bishop  of  Eostoff,  who  had 
been  deprived  of  his  diocese  by  the  metropolitan  Con- 
stantino, went  to  the  Byzantine  capital  to  defend  his 
case  and  vindicate  his  rights.  There  he  was  met  with 
a  charge  of  heresy.  The  heresy  was  this,  that  he  had 
forbidden  people  to  break  their  Wednesday  or  Friday  fasts 
even  when  the  festivals  of  the  Nativity  and  Epiphany 
fell  on  those  days.  The  irregularity  did  not  begin  with 
Nestor,  nor  was  he  the  only  promoter  of  it.  It  was 
revived  by  a  bishop  named  Leon,  who  had  come  into 
his  diocese  during  his  absence.  Leon  was  first  tried  by 
the  metropolitan  at  Kiev,  and  then  at  Constantinople  by 
the  patriarch.  But  the  heresy  was  not  crushed.  It 
appeared  at  Kiev  in  the  person  of  the  metropolitan 
Constantine  ii.,  who  adopted  it  in  all  innocence  and 
convoked  a  synod  to  establish  it ;  but  he  was  opposed 
by  two  valiant  champions  of  sound  doctrine  with  re- 
gard to  feasts  and  fasts,  Cyril,  bishop  of  Touroff,  and 
Polycarp,  archimandrite  of  the  great  Pechersky  Monastery 
and    continuator   of  Nestor's  Lives   of    the    Saints.       This 


THE   MONGOLIAN    INVASION    OF    RUSSIA  377 

man  even  suffered  imprisonment  for  his  fidelity  in  the 
matter. 

Subsequently,  in  the  course  of  the  never-ending  discords 
of  these  times,  Kiev  was  taken  by  storm  and  visited  with 
all  the  horrors  of  a  sacked  city.  The  orthodox  Church 
regarded  this  as  Heaven's  just  punishment  for  the  heresy  of 
her  metropolitan.  So  ruinous  was  the  disaster  that  the 
post  of  metropolitan  remained  vacant  for  about  ten  years, 
after  which  the  city  had  sufficiently  revived  for  a  re- 
storation of  its  ecclesiastical  functions,  and  the  patriarch 
of  Constantinople  then  appointed  a  Greek,  Nicephorus  ii. 
(a.d.  1185).  But  the  storm-cloud  which  had  rolled  back 
for  an  interval  soon  gathered  again,  and  Kiev  was  captured 
and  sacked  a  second  time,  a  fate  from  which  she  never 
recovered.  Her  ruin  followed  sixteen  years  later  in  the 
Mongol  invasion.  This  ends  the  first  period  in  Eussian 
Church  history.  Hitherto  Kiev  had  been  the  metropolis 
both  of  the  State  and  of  the  Church,  though  sharing  some 
of  the  honour  with  the  older  capital  in  the  north,  Novgorod. 
After  her  own  civil  wars  and  the  cataclysm  of  the  Asiatic 
invasion  this  was  no  longer  the  case. 

The  internal  disorders  of  the  twelfth  century  were 
followed  in  the  thirteenth  century  by  the  infinitely  greater 
disaster  of  the  Mongol  invasion.  This  was  part  of  a  vast 
movement  that  was  sweeping  up  from  Central  Asia  and 
threatening  to  engulf  Europe  in  a  sea  of  barbarism.  The 
Mongols  were  of  the  same  race  as  those  devastating 
invaders  known  as  the  Huns,  who  had  brought  terror  to 
Eome  at  an  earlier  period.  But  in  course  of  time  they 
became  Mohammedans,  the  religion  of  the  Prophet  having 
passed  on  through  Persia  to  the  wild  tribes  of  the  region 
since  known  as  Turkestan.  Therefore  we  might  regard 
their  progress  as  that  of  the  right  wing  of  the  vast  army 
of  Islam  which  was  advancing  in  half-moon  formation,  and 
closing  in  upon  the  civilised  world  all  round  its  limits 
from  Russia  to  Spain.  But  this  Mongol  invasion  had 
really  no  relations  with  the  movements  of  the  Moors  in 
Africa  and  the  West ;  it  was  the  greatest  of  a  series  of 


378  THE   GREEK   AND    EASTERN   CHURCHES 

volcanic  outbursts  of  wild  peoples  from  the  steppes  of 
Asia.  The  terrible  leader  Genghis^  Khan  —  "Chief  of 
Chiefs" — became  one  of  the  world  conquerers  and  empire 
founders  whom  we  might  compare  with  Alexander  the 
Great,  Julius  Caesar,  or  Napoleon,  if  only  he  had  added 
more  constructive  genius  to  his  mihtary  gifts  and  powers. 
At  first  the  Eussians  appeared  able  to  offer  effectual  re- 
sistance, and  they  gave  the  Mongol  host  a  temporary  check 
at  the  Kalka  (a.d.  1224).  But  it  was  not  long  before 
the  pent-up  forces  burst  forth  and  carried  all  before  them. 
First  Vladimir  was  taken;  then  Kiev  fell.  Still,  on 
marched  the  host,  northwards  as  far  as  Novgorod,  west- 
wards absorbing  Hungary,  then  peopled  by  a  kindred  race, 
the  descendants  of  an  earlier  invasion,  but  now  Christian. 
The  invasion  was  only  stopped  at  the  frontier  of  Poland 
and  Germany.  By  the  end  of  the  century  the  vast  Mongol 
Empire  extended  from  China  to  the  borders  of  these 
countries  of  central  Europe,  covering  all  northern  Asia  and 
eastern  Europe.  The  occupation  of  Eussia  lasted  for 
three  centuries. 

It  is  not  easy  to  imagine  the  enormous  significance 
of  this  central  fact  in  Eussian  history.  The  Mongol 
occupation  cut  that  history  in  two,  with  the  result  that 
the  second  period,  the  period  that  follows  the  dismal 
gap  of  national  effacement,  differs  in  many  serious  re- 
spects from  the  earlier  period,  with  which  we  were  con- 
cerned in  the  previous  chapter.  The  tendency  of  modern 
historians  is  to  make  less  of  this  fact  than  was  formerly 
assumed.  Eussian  writers  in  particular  are  anxious  to 
vindicate  their  country  from  a  charge  of  having  adopted 
Mongolian  habits.^  It  seems  clear  that  some  of  the 
Oriental  customs  which  were  practised  by  the  Eussians 
were  due  to  the  influence  of  Constantinople  rather  than 
to  the  effect  of  the  Mongol  invasion.  For  instance, 
there  was  a  strict  seclusion  of  women  in   the  court  of  the 

'  Mr.  Mortill  spells  the  name  Dchingish.     M.   Leroy  Beanlieu  spells  it 
Djiiigliiz. 

-  e.g.  Soloviev,  the  historian. 


THE    MONGOLIAN    INVASION    OF    RUSSIA  379 

Byzantine  Empire,  wliicli  was  iniitated  wlien  IJussia  came 
under  Byzantine  inliueiices,  and  therefore  must  not  be 
attributed  to  Mohannuedanisni.  Then  the  Sclavonic  is 
certainly  still  the  basal  element  in  Eussian  life,  as  it 
always  has  been.  Moreover,  the  Mongols  had  not  the 
Eoman  genius  for  ruling.  They  let  the  local  Eussian 
princes  govern  their  territories  though  subject  to  the 
supremacy  of  the  "  horde,"  wherever  this  moving  army 
might  be.  Novgorod,  isolated  by  its  marshes  and  the 
barrenness  of  its  neighbourhood,  was  left  almost  to  itself 
in  virtual  independence.  We  must  not  regard  the 
Mongols  as  a  mere  plague  of  locusts  eating  up  everything 
they  came  across. 

Nevertheless,  after  due  allowance  is  made  for  these 
mitigating  circumstances,  the  fact  remains  that  the  Mongol 
invasion  left  lasting  effects  on  the  national  life  of  Eussia. 
Many  Eussian  princes  married  daughters  of  the  Mongols. 
Later  on,  a  nobleman  of  Mongolian  origin,  Boris  Godunov, 
was  elected  tsar.  Even  in  dress  the  influence  of  the 
Mongols  was  felt,  and  Eussians  adopted  from  them  the 
long  flowing  robe  known  as  the  "  caftan."  A  less  pardon- 
able Mongolian  import  was  the  knout,  that  horrible  instru- 
ment of  torture,  the  use  of  which  was  continued  till  the 
reign  of  Alexander  I.,  and  has  been  revived  in  the  prisons  of 
to-day.  Erom  the  same  source  came  the  public  flogging  of 
debtors,  which  was  subsequently  abolished  by  Peter  the 
Great.  But  the  chief  result  of  the  Mongol  invasion  was 
that  it  cut  Eussia  ofl'  from  the  West,  and  made  it  more  and 
more  an  Eastern  country.  In  the  previous  period  Eussia 
had  belonged  to  the  comity  of  European  nations.  It  has 
been  already  remarked  that  her  civilisation  was  then  superior 
to  that  of  France  and  Germany,^  She  was  joined  with 
Constantinople  in  the  van  of  progress.  But  the  Mongolian 
invasion  put  an  end  to  this  state  of  affairs.  For  the  time 
being  all  national  life  seemed  to  be  crushed,  A  cringeing 
attitude  was  forced  on  princes  and  people.  The  princes 
were  compelled  to  travel  to  the  horde — the  movable  court 

1  P.  363, 


380  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

and  camp  of  the  khan — for  their  investiture,  and  to  submit 
to  its  authority  whenever  it  chose  to  interfere  with  them. 
To  the  horde  they  had  to  pay  their  tribute.  Even  at  home 
they  were  hampered  by  the  presence  of  residents  called 
"  baskkks."  That  thirteenth  century,  which  is  to  us  a  very 
golden  age — the  age  of  St.  Francis  and  the  friars  and  the 
awakening  of  democratic  religion  throughout  the  West — 
the  age  of  early  English  architecture  and  cathedral  build- 
ing— the  age  of  the  great  English  king  Edward  i.  and  the 
rise  of  the  House  of  Commons — the  age  of  Dante  and  the 
origin  of  modern  literature — the  age  of  Giotto  and  Fra 
Angelico  and  the  beginnings  of  modern  painting — this  was 
in  Russia  the  darkest  of  ages,  the  age  of  oppression  and 
stagnation  and  misery.  Eussia  had  shared  with  Constanti- 
nople the  glories  of  the  earlier  period,  when  the  rest  of 
Europe  was  abandoned  to  the  barbarism  which  followed 
the  break-up  of  the  Roman  Empire,  and  which  we  have  been 
taught  to  call  the  Dark  Ages.  Now  the  case  was  completely 
reversed.  The  darkness  lifted  from  the  West,  and  a  brilliant 
day  dawned  in  England,  France,  and  Italy ;  at  the  same 
time  the  darkness  settled  down  on  Russia — ^just  when  the 
abominable  "  Latin  Empire  "  was  filling  Constantinople  and 
the  Eastern  Church  with  gloom  and  misery. 

This  national  calamity  of  Russia  could  not  but  have 
a  profound  effect  on  the  Church  and  the  course  of  her 
life  during  the  period  of  trial.  Here  the  first  thing 
to  observe  is  that  the  Mongols,  even  after  they  became 
Mohammedans,  did  not  persecute  the  Christians  in  Russia. 
That  country  was  still  the  land  least  stained  with  the 
blood  of  martyrs.  It  was  when  she  began  to  persecute 
her  own  sons  whom  she  reckoned  heretics,  the  members 
of  the  various  prohibited  sects,  that  this  cruelty  became 
common  in  Russia.  The  Mongols  permitted  the  Christians 
to  enjoy  their  religion  freely  and  to  conduct  its  public 
services.  The  khans  even  protected  the  Church  from  attack, 
and  exempted  its  property  from  confiscation.  But  this 
very  fact  had  its  peculiar  influence,  especially  when  it  was 
combined  with  the  political  factors  of  the  case.      Russia 


THE    MONGOLIAN    INVASION    OF    RUSSIA  381 

was  now  cut  off  from  Constantinople.  Like  the  prince, 
the  metropolitan  had  to  go  to  the  horde  for  investiture. 
He,  too,  was  required  to  cringe  before  the  great  khan. 
Then  the  Church  centre  was  removed  first  to  Vladimir, 
and  afterwards  to  Moscow,  which  was  quite  out  of  reach 
from  Constantinople.  Ecclesiastically  this  is  one  of  the 
most  important  results  of  the  Mongol  invasion.  As 
regards  the  internal  affairs  of  the  Church,  it  meant 
independence.  The  Eussian  metropolitan  was  no  longer 
subject  to  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople.  Thus  the 
Eussian  Church  became  free  from  Greek  control.  This 
was  one  stage  in  the  progress  of  her  importance,  to  be 
followed  later  by  her  primacy  in  the  holy  orthodox 
Church,  with  the  tsar  as  its  head  and  protector. 

A  further  consequence  of  the  Moslem  invasion  is  that 
from  this  time  onwards  religion  and  patriotism  blend.  It 
is  like  the  union  of  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church  in  Ireland 
with  the  Nationalist  party.  In  some  measure  this  result 
was  brought  about  by  the  forced  severance  of  connection 
with  Constantinople.  Hitherto  the  Church  in  Eussia  had 
been  in  some  respects  an  exotic  growth.  Her  metro- 
politans had  been  Greeks,  appointed  by  the  patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  despatched  as  foreign  missionaries  by  this 
ecclesiastic  of  another  country,  not  always  even  knowing 
the  language  of  the  people  over  whom  they  were  imposed 
as  their  chief  pastors.  But  after  the  Mongol  conquest  the 
metropolitans  were  Eussians  elected  by  native  Eussian 
bishops.  Then,  in  the  second  place,  the  common  misery 
of  the  alien  yoke  drove  the  Church  along  the  same  way  as 
the  nation,  or  rather  awoke  national  instincts  in  connection 
with  rehgion,  and  made  the  religious  leaders  ardent  patriots. 
Thus,  through  these  two  injEluences,  the  Mongol  invasion 
Eussianised  the  Church  in  Eussia. 

It  is  more  difficult  to  penetrate  beneath  the  surface  and 
discover  how  far  the  interests  of  religion  itself  were  affected 
by  this  huge  cataclysm ;  but  it  would  seem  that  in  some 
respects  the  trial  was  a  stimulus  to  faith.  In  their  desola- 
tion and  wretchedness  the  people  felt  the  need  of  religion. 


382  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Certain  fascinating  and  exciting  forms  of  religion  are  always 
found  to  flourish  under  such  circumstances.  The  Jewish 
oppression  under  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  again  under  the 
Komans,  gave  rise  to  apocalypses  which  painted  the  future 
in  glowing  colours  for  the  people  of  God,  but  threatened 
doom  for  their  oppressors.  Similarly,  during  the  Mongol 
oppression  new  prophecies  were  published  and  eagerly 
devoured ;  people  saw  strange  visions ;  icons  were  un- 
usually active  in  working  miracles.  At  this  time  too  a 
great  impulse  was  given  to  monasticism.  No  doubt  there 
was  much  poverty,  for  trade  must  have  been  terribly  dis- 
organised, and  other  miseries  besides  hunger  drove  multi- 
tudes into  the  monasteries.  Many  sought  the  calm  seclusion 
of  the  monastic  life  simply  because  it  was  more  congenial 
to  their  devotional  temperament.  But  monasteries  which 
were  planted  in  remote  and  secluded  places  for  the  sake 
of  the  retirement  sought  by  their  inmates  became  centres 
of  missionary  activity.  Thus  Eussia  repeated  the  experi- 
ence of  Germany  in  an  earlier  age. 

The  consequence  was  that  this  very  time,  when  the 
normal  development  of  the  Eussians  in  civilisation  and 
secular  progress  was  checked  and  thrown  back,  Christianity 
was  being  spread  farther  afield  in  outlying  regions  of 
northern  and  eastern  Europe  by  Eussian  monks.  In  the 
East  the  far-off  place  called  Great  Perm,  near  the  Ural 
Mountains,  formerly  only  visited  by  fur-hunters,  was  now 
both  Christianised  and  won  to  Eussia  by  the  labours  of  a 
single  monk,  bearing  the  common  monastic  name  Stephen. 
All  alone  he  penetrated  the  forests,  and,  though  opposed 
by  the  pagan  priests,  succeeded  in  winning  a  body  of 
converts,  for  whom  he  built  a  rude  church  on  the  bank 
of  the  river  Viuma.  The  metropolitan  consecrated  him 
bishop  of  Perm,  where  he  laboured  for  many  years ;  he 
retired  to  Moscow  in  his  old  age.  Eudocia,  or  Eupraxia 
according  to  her  name  in  the  convent,  founded  the  convent 
of  the  Ascension  in  the  Kremlin  ;  St.  Euphemius  established 
the  celebrated  monastery  of  the  Saviour  at  Souzdal ;  St. 
Cyril  founded  the  monastery  of  Bielo-ozero,  one  of  the  most 


THE    MONGOLIAN    INVASION    OF    RUSSIA  383 

famous  of  all  Paissian  moDasteries.  At  first  simply  seeking 
for  a  retreat  like  St.  Anthony  in  the  desert,  Cyril  retired  to 
the  lonely  shores  of  the  White  Lake ;  but  his  fame  spread, 
and  companions  gathered  about  him  peopling  the  solitude  with 
lives  dedicated  to  the  service  of  religion.  Here  the  traveller 
to-day  sees  a  monastery  of  the  first  class,  surrounded  by 
two  strong  walls  flanked  by  lofty  towers,  and  armed  with 
cannons.  The  enclosure  contains  two  monasteries,  a  greater 
and  a  lesser.  The  greater  monastery  lies  between  the 
inner  and  the  outer  walls ;  it  has  nine  churches  built  of 
stone.  The  lesser  monastery  is  within  the  second  wall. 
This  monastery  is  said  to  possess  the  richest  treasures  of 
gold-embroidered  and  jewelled  vestments  in  the  empire. 
In  earlier  days  it  earned  a  more  laudable  reputation,  for 
then  it  was  a  centre  of  missionary  activity  in  still  more 
remote  regions.  One  of  its  offsprings  is  the  Solovetsky 
Monastery,  which  is  built  on  one  of  a  cluster  of  islands 
lying  out  north  of  the  bay  of  Onega  in  the  White  Sea, 
The  island  is  inaccessible  for  nearly  eight  months  of  the 
year  on  account  of  ice-floes ;  but  during  the  summer  it  is 
visited  by  crowds  of  pilgrims. 

This  monastery  in  its  turn,  long  regarded  as  the 
northernmost  outpost  of  the  Eussian  Church,  became  a 
centre  of  missionary  activity  in  Arctic  regions.  On  a  rocky 
island  on  Lake  Loubensky,  not  far  from  Bielo-ozero,  there 
lived  a  community  of  monks  who  were  engaged  in  preach- 
ing the  gospel  to  the  Finnish  tribe  of  the  Chondes.  The 
monk  Lazarus  founded  a  monastery  on  the  shore  of  Lake 
Onega  as  a  missionary  centre  for  the  conversion  of  the 
Laplanders,  while  the  monks  of  Salaam  on  the  neighbour- 
ing Lake  Ladoga  also  evangelised  these  people.  In  the 
south  and  east,  and  throughout  the  greater  part  of  her 
country,  Eussia  was  now  down-trodden  and  distressed  by 
a  cruel,  barbarous  yoke.  Yet  we  see  these  very  years 
of  her  oppression  to  be  the  times  of  greatest  activity 
in  the  extension  of  Christianity  on  her  inhospitable  borders 
out  of  reach  of  the  Asiatic  intruder.  History  has  few 
more  inspiring  tales  to  tell  than  this  record  of  the  sweet 


384  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

that  canio  out  of  the  bitter,  the  lioiiey  from  the  lion's 
mouth.  The  Eussian  Church  was  never  more  fruitful  in 
winning  converts  to  the  gospel  than  when  so  many  of  her 
sons  had  fled  from  before  the  oppressor,  not  to  rest  in  peace, 
but  to  take  up  new  work,  and  utilise  their  exile  in  the 
service  of  their  Lord.  Thus  the  dreadful  Mongol  invasion, 
which  on  the  surface  appeared  to  be  nothing  but  a  curse 
to  the  Church  as  well  as  to  the  nation,  proved  to  be  the  un- 
intentional stimulus  of  wide-spreading  missionary  activity, 
and  indirectly  the  means  of  transmitting  the  greatest 
benefits  to  unknown  tribes  by  the  northern  seas. 


CHAPTEK   III 

THE  REVIVAL  OF  RUSSIA 

Books  named  in  Chap.  II.  ;  also  for  Ivan  the  Terrible,  Early 
Voyayes  and  Travels  tu  Russia  and  Persia  (The  Hakluyt  Society), 
1856 ;  Leroy  Beaulieu,  Tlie  Empire  of  the  Tsars,  Eng.  trans., 
1893-96. 

At  Eome  the  popes  were  always  ready  to  regard  the 
distress  of  the  East  as  their  own  opportunity ;  and  more 
than  once  the  threatened  approach  of  the  Turks  to  Con- 
stantinople had  opened  up  the  way  for  negotiations  between 
the  Lateran  and  the  Byzantine  court.  A  similar  condition 
is  to  be  observed  in  Eussia  under  the  Mongol  oppression. 
The  orthodox  Church  appeared  to  be  now  in  the  most 
helpless  and  hopeless  condition.  The  Latin  conquest  of 
Constantinople  had  forced  the  Greek  patriarch  into  exile, 
and  his  immediate  task  was  to  gather  together  the  scattered 
remnants  of  his  authority,  while  a  usurper,  a  bishop  of  the 
papal  Church,  was  sitting  on  his  throne  at  St.  Sophia. 
Thus  harassed  and  hampered,  he  could  not  be  expected  to 
do  anything  to  help  his  prot^g^s  in  the  north.  Under 
these  circumstances  the  Pope  Innocent  iv.  proposed  to  assist 
Eussia  by  raising  a  crusade  against  the  Mongols  on  condition 
of  union  with  Eome.  With  this  end  in  view  he  sent  his 
legates  to  the  two  princes,  Alexander  at  Novgorod,  and 
Daniel,  the  Prince  of  Galick  in  the  south.  The  former, 
being  fairly  out  of  the  reach  of  the  invaders,  could  afford  to 
reject  the  papal  overtures ;  but  Daniel,  whose  territory  was 
suffering  from  the  full  force  of  the  Asiatic  scourge,  accepted 
the  crown  the  pope  had  sent  him  and  with  it  the  title  of 
King  of  Galick,  though  shrewdly  postponing  the  execution 
as 


386  THE   GREEK   AND   EASTERN    CHURCHES 

of  his  part  of  the  proposed  bargain  till  an  oecumenical 
council  had  decided  on  the  question  of  the  union  of  the 
two  Churches. 

The  post  of  metropolitan  of  Kiev  had  been  vacant  for 
ten   years   during   the    troubles   of  the   times.      This   old 
political  capital  and  ecclesiastical  centre  of  Kussia  had  been 
sacked,  and  its  principal  buildings,  which  had  been  used  as 
fortresses  during  the  siege — the   cathedral  of  St.  Sophia, 
the  church  of  the  Tithes,  the   monastery  of  St.  Michael, 
and    the    great    Pechersky   Monastery — all   captured   one 
after  the  other  and  destroyed.     Daniel  now  took  steps  to 
fill  the  vacancy.     At  the  very  time  when  he  was  carrying 
on  his  negotiations  with  the  pope  he  was  also  in  communica- 
tion with  the  patriarch  Manuel  II.     He  selected  a  patriotic 
Eussian  named  Cyril  to  be  metropolitan  of  Kiev,  and  sent 
him  to  Nicffia  for  consecration  (a.d.  1250).     Cyril  proved  to 
be  a  great  bishop ;  it  is  to  his  energy  that  we  must  attribute 
in  a  large  measure  the  rapid  revival  of  the  Church  in  Russia 
after  the  stunning  blow  it  had  received  from  the  Mongol 
invasion.     Cyril  left  the  ruins  of  Kiev,  passed  through  the 
desolate    towns   of    Cheringoff  and  Riazan,  and  travelled 
on  to  Novgorod,  which  had  escaped  the  scourge.     There 
he  consecrated  an  archbishop  and  met  the  Prince  Alex- 
ander on  his  return  from  a  journey  to  the  horde  to  pay 
his    homage  to   the  khan.      The    camp    of    the    nomadic 
Mongols  had  been  moved  from  place  to  place  during  times 
of  war;    but  now  it  was   settled  at  Sarai.     Since  many 
Russians  were  actually  resident  there,  or  were  at  least  com- 
pelled to  go  there  from  time  to  time  to  visit  their  foreign 
master,  Cyril  made  it  a  bishopric,  and  consecrated  Metro- 
phanes,  its  first  bishop.    This  see  remained  in  being  as  long 
as  the  Mongol  power  existed ;  it  was  brought  to  an  end 
when  the  horde  was  broken  up. 

In  the  year  1274,  Cyril  summoned  a  synod  at  Vladimir 
on  the  occasion  of  the  consecration  of  Serapias,  the  archi- 
mandrite of  the  Pechersky  Monastery,  to  the  bishopric. 
The  synod  set  about  a  reformation  of  Church  discipline 
with  a  view  to  rooting  out  simony  and  other  abuses,  and 


THE    REVIVAL    OF    RUSSIA  387 

exacting  enquiry  into  the  character  of  candidates  for  orders. 
The  extreme  importance  attached  to  minutiae  of  ritual 
in  the  Eastern  Church  is  well  illustrated  by  the  special 
emphasis  which  was  afterwards  given  to  this  synod's 
prohibition  of  the  custom  of  mixing  the  holy  chrism  with 
oil,  and  of  the  use  of  affusion  instead  of  immersion  in  the 
rite  of  baptism. 

When  Cyril  died  (a.d.  1 2  8 1 ),  for  a  short  time  no  successor 
was  appointed,  because,  although  the  Latin  usurpation  was 
at  an  end,  and  Michael  Palseologus  was  now  reigning  at 
Constantinople,  both  the  emperor  and  his  patriarch  were 
suspected  of  inclinations  towards  Eome.  But  when,  after 
the  death  of  Michael  (a.d.  1282),  his  son  Andronicus 
restored  the  orthodox  Joseph,  that  patriarch  sent  into 
Eussia  Maxim  us,  a  Greek,  to  be  metropolitan.  It  is  to 
be  observed  that  whenever  the  Kussian  prince  chooses  a 
metropolitan  he  selects  a  man  of  his  own  nationality,  and 
that  whenever  the  patriarch  nominates  anybody  for  the 
office  he  takes  care  to  send  a  Greek.  We  may  see  in 
these  facts  a  portent  of  the  future,  when  Eussia  could 
dare  to  be  more  independent.  In  the  last  year  of  this 
gloomy  thirteenth  century  the  metropolitan  Maximus 
moved  his  centre  from  the  ruined  Kiev  and  its  desolated 
neighbourhood  to  the  new  capital,  Vladimir.  It  was  not 
long  there;  for  on  his  death  (a.d.  1305)  it  was  removed 
to  Moscow,  a  city  destined  to  be  the  great  metropolis 
of  the  Eussian  Church  and  empire  for  many  years  to 
come. 

To  add  to  the  troubles  of  these  dark  times,  the  princes, 
who  were  allowed  a  measure  of  home  rule  under  the 
suzerainty  of  the  khan,  quarrelled  among  themselves.  The 
Church  was  then  the  one  bond  of  unity  for  the  unhappy 
Eussian  people,  and  the  metropolitan  bishop  its  one  visible 
centre.  Thus  this  ecclesiastic  acquired  temporarily  in  Eussia 
some  shadow  of  the  influence  that  was  exercised  by  the  pope 
in  Italy  during  the  quarrels  of  the  barons.  It  was  the 
perception  of  this  fact  that  led  Prince  John  at  Moscow  to 
invite  the  metropolitan  to  come  from  Vladimir  and  reside 


388  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

at  his  capital.  Meanwhile  another  movement  was  going 
on  in  the  West.  In  the  year  1392,  Lithuania  was  brought 
into  connection  with  Poland  ;  eighteen  years  later,  its  prince, 
Vitovt,  defeated  the  Teutonic  knights,^  and  so  stayed 
the  encroachments  of  Germany  and  the  papal  influence. 
In  order  to  strengthen  his  independence  both  politically 
and  ecclesiastically,  Vitovt  requested  the  patriarchs  of 
Constantinople  to  appoint  a  metropolitan  for  Kiev.  This 
would  have  involved  the  independence  of  Moscow  and  its 
metropolitan.  But  the  patriarch  would  not  comply. 
Then  Vitovt  convoked  a  synod  of  his  orthodox  bishops, 
which  elected  a  Bulgarian,  Gregory  Tsamblak,  to  the  new 
office. 

Gregory  was  orthodox  according  to  the  Greek  standard. 
But  Vitovt  sent  him  to  the  council  of  Constance,  which 
was  then  in  session.  A  little  later  the  metropolitan 
Photius  seized  a  favourable  moment  for  visiting  both 
Vitovt  and  Yagello  the  King  of  Poland.  The  death  of 
Photius  was  followed  by  a  time  of  miserable  dissentions  at 
Moscow.  Vitovt  died,  and  his  successor,  Svidrigailo,  sent 
Gerasimus,  the  bishop  of  Smolensk,  to  Constantinople  to  be 
appointed  metropolitan  of  Kiev.  Por  some  reason  not  easy 
to  divine,  the  patriarch  Joseph  consented.  He  may  have 
thought  that  the  disorderly  condition  of  Moscow  unfitted 
that  new  metropolis  to  be  the  seat  of  a  primate.  But  he 
may  also  have  had  some  foresight  of  the  inevitable  con- 
sequence of  the  removal  of  the  metropolitan  so  far  beyond 
the  reach  of  Constantinople.  There  does  not  seem  to  have 
been  any  formal  act  on  the  part  of  the  patriarch  to  put 
the  central  and  eastern  parts  of  Eussia  under  the  new 
metropolitan.  Nevertheless,  the  appointment  of  Gerasimus 
as  metropolitan  of  Kiev  while  the  see  of  Moscow  was  vacant 
could  not  but  imply  a  transference  of  the  ecclesiastical  centre 
of  gravity.  Joseph  could  not  recognise  any  independent 
Church  of  Lithuania.  To  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople 
both  Eussia  proper  and  the  Western  provinces  on  its 
border  were  but  parts  of  the  one  holy  orthodox  Church. 
*  An  order  established  to  convert  the  heathen  Lithuanians  by  force. 


THE    REVIVAL    OF    RUSSIA  389 

There  is  not  much  advantage  in  discussing  this  curious 
situation,  because  even  though  appointed  metropoHtan  by 
the  patriarch,  Gerasimus  was  unable  to  exercise  any  in- 
fluence in  Eussia,  or  to  be  recognised  by  any  of  the  Eussian 
bishops.  Though  it  was  his  wish  to  go  to  Moscow  and 
establish  himself  there,  he  had  to  remain  at  Smolensk. 
Had  he  succeeded,  the  patriarch  would  have  gained  nothing 
by  his  appointment.  The  magnitude  of  the  Eussian 
Church  would  have  left  Lithuania  hanging  on  its  fringe  as 
a  mere  outlying  district,  and  Constantinople  would  have 
had  no  better  security  for  the  retention  of  its  influence  and 
authority.  If  we  are  to  understand  that  from  the  first 
Joseph  had  intended  Gerasimus  to  reside  at  Moscow,  it  is 
difficult  to  discover  what  good  he  could  have  hoped  to  reap 
from  his  unpopular  act  in  thrusting  an  outsider  on  the 
Eussian  Church.  Eussia  had  not  always  submitted  to  Greek 
metropolitans  with  good  grace.  But  to  be  governed  by  a 
Lithuanian  when  Lithuania  was  independent  and  looking  to 
Poland  for  sympathy,  certainly  this  was  not  a  thing  for 
her  to  meekly  accept  even  from  the  hands  of  the  patriarch. 

Nor  did  Lithuania  itself  ultimately  profit.  Gerasimus 
came  to  an  awful  end.  His  friend  and  patron  Svidrigailo  was 
informed  that  he  was  carrying  on  a  treasonable  correspond- 
ence with  Sigismund,  a  rival  claimant  to  the  principality. 
In  a  rage  at  the  ingratitude  of  a  man  whom  he  had  so 
much  favoured,  the  prince  burnt  him  alive.  After  this 
tragedy  the  ecclesiastical  independence  of  Lithuania 
came  to  an  end.  Her  metropolitan  was  never  able  to 
take  the  lead  of  the  Eussian  Church.  But  she  was  not 
strong  enough  to  stand  alone.  The  inevitable  drift  was 
in  the  opposite  direction.  The  independence  of  Lithuania 
was  maintained  for  almost  a  century  and  a  half,  and  then 
ended  by  the  diet  of  Lublin  (a.d.  1568).  Gradually  the 
leading  families  joined  themselves  to  Poland  and  accepted 
the  Eoman  Catholic  religion,  and  the  people  followed. 

We  now  come  to  the  important  events  associated  with 
the  career  of  Isidore.  At  this  point  Eussia  emerges  from  her 
comparative  isolation,  and  in  the  person  of  her  ecclesiastical 


390  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

representative  takes  a  leading  place  in  the  history  of  the 
universal  Cliurch.  When  the  Emperor  John  was  preparing 
for  the  council,  which,  as  he  hoped,  was  to  bring  about  the 
union  of  Christendom  and  so  help  him  in  his  resistance  to 
the  encroachments  of  the  Turks,  Isidore  was  sent  from 
Constantinople  to  be  metropolitan  at  Moscow.  He  was 
deliberately  chosen  as  a  man  favourable  to  the  union  of  the 
Eastern  and  Western  Churches,  and  it  has  been  maintained 
that  the  Pope  Eugenius  had  actually  intrigued  for  his 
appointment.  Nevertheless,  he  met  with  a  warm  welcome 
in  Eussia.  Both  Kiev  and  Moscow  gave  him  a  public 
reception,  But  he  had  not  been  in  office  more  than  four 
months  when  he  urged  the  prince,  Basil,  to  permit  him  to 
attend  the  council  that  was  to  meet  in  Italy,  and  obtained 
a  reluctant  consent,  on  the  ground  that  otherwise  Eussia 
would  be  the  only  Christian  country  excluded.  It  was  a 
difficult  position.  At  Constantinople  the  emperor  was 
straining  every  nerve  to  be  reconciled  with  Eome  in  order 
to  obtain  the  aid  of  the  Western  powers.  But  Constanti- 
nople's danger  was  not  felt  at  Moscow,  and  there  nobody 
had  the  slightest  wish  for  union,  except  the  one  Greek  at 
the  head  of  the  Church  who  had  been  sent  there  for  the 
express  purpose  of  helping  it  on. 

The  princes  and  prelates  assembled  at  Ferara  waited  for 
Isidore,  as  representing  the  largest  branch  of  the  Eastern 
Church,  before  opening  the  council.  As  soon  as  he  arrived 
the  sessions  began.  It  will  be  remembered  ^  that  while  Mark 
of  Ephesus  led  the  opposition,  Bessarion,  the  metropolitan 
of  Nicaea,  and  Isidore  of  Moscow  were  foremost  in  support- 
ing the  proposals  for  union.  After  the  council  had  been 
transferred  to  Florence,  and  when  at  length  Eugenius  had 
triumphed  and  the  union  was  declared,  Bessarion  and  Isidore 
were  both  rewarded  by  being  made  cardinals,  and  the  latter 
received  the  title,  "  Cardinal  Legate  of  the  Apostolic  See  in 
Eussia."  He  returned  home  triumphant.  He  had  accom- 
plished his  object — at  Florence.  But  what  was  the  good 
of   that   if  his  action   should   not  be  ratified   in   Eussia  ? 

»  See  p.  268. 


THE    REVIVAL   OF    RUSSIA  391 

Isidore  seems  to  have  deceived  himself  with  the  notion 
that  he  could  simply  assume  that  in  what  he  had  done  he 
had  carried  his  Church  with  him.  So  enamoured  was  he 
of  the  papal  idea,  that  he  seems  to  have  behaved  like  a 
pope  himself.  He  appears  to  have  been  deluded  by  the 
enthusiastic  reception  that  had  been  accorded  him  when  he 
first  came  to  Moscow.  But  then  the  people  were  delighted 
at  having  a  metropolitan  of  their  own  after  a  long  interval, 
during  which  the  Lithuanian  metropolitan  had  been  trying 
to  get  the  upper  hand  in  Eussia.  Now  the  case  was  very 
different.  Without  consulting  his  bishops  the  metropolitan 
had  surrendered  the  chief  points  of  dispute  between  the 
Eastern  and  Western  Churches.  It  looked  like  a  betrayal 
of  trust.     We  are  prepared  for  the  sequel. 

Isidore  is  conducting  the  service  at  the  church  of  the 
Assumption  on  the  first  occasion  after  his  return.  The 
archdeacon  standing  by  his  chair  has  read  the  acts  of  the 
council  of  Florence  to  an  astonished  congregation.  Isidore 
names  the  pope  in  his  prayers.  Then  the  Prince  Basil 
cannot  contain  his  indignation.  He  calls  Isidore  a  traitor 
to  orthodoxy  and  a  false  pastor. 

The  first  step  is  to  summon  a  council  of  bishops  and 
boyars.  They  come  together  as  men  of  one  mind.  Not  a 
bishop,  not  a  lord  will  own  the  pope  as  vicar  of  Christ. 
Every  member  of  the  council  without  exception  rejects  the 
Western  doctrine  of  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This 
means  the  condemnation  of  their  metropolitan.  In  spite 
of  his  skilful  pleading  he  can  make  out  no  case  to  win  a 
single  vote  for  his  side.  The  issue  is  the  banishment  of 
Isidore  to  the  Choudoff  Monastery. 

The  subsequent  story  of  Isidore  is  full  of  adventure. 
He  escaped  from  his  prison  and  fled  to  Eome.  Thence  he 
was  sent  to  Constantinople  to  attempt  there  what  he  had 
been  unable  to  effect  in  his  own  see.  The  Greeks  were 
as  reluctant  as  the  Kussians  to  submit  to  the  Florentine 
decision.  Isidore  was  one  of  the  ablest  men  of  the  day ; 
but  ability  counted  for  little  when  confronted  with  age- 
long orthodoxy.      His  efforts  were  brought  to  an   abrupt 


392  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN   CHURCHES 

termination  by  the  last  act  in  the  tragedy  of  the  Eastern 
Empire.  While  the  Christians  were  quarrelling  the  Turks 
were  advancing.  At  the  capture  of  Constantinople  by 
Mohammed  ii.,  Isidore  was  one  of  the  many  Greeks  who 
fled  to  Italy.  No  one  had  earned  a  better  right  to  an 
asylum  at  Rome,  and  there  he  was  rewarded  with  the 
phantom  title  of  "  Patriarch  of  Constantinople." 

A  shadowy  attempt  to  maintain  the  papal  authority 
which  Isidore  had  vainly  tried  to  introduce  into  Eussia 
was  made  in  the  appointment  of  one  of  his  followers  named 
Gregory  as  metropolitan  of  Kiev.  But  although  he  was 
recognised  by  Casimir,  the  Prince  of  Lithuania,  Gregory  was 
never  acknowledged  by  the  Church  in  Eussia  or  even  in 
Lithuania.  The  schism  was  maintained  for  some  time  by 
the  appointment  of  a  succession  of  Latin  metropolitans  at 
Kiev  ;  but  these  men  had  no  following.  They  can  only 
be  regarded  as  papal  agents  resident  in  a  country  over 
which  they  exercised  no  authority  and  in  which  they 
were  not  in  any  way  recognised  by  the  people  or  the 
Church. 

The  fall  of  Constantinople,  which  makes  the  year 
1453  a  landmark  in  the  history  of  Europe,  while  it  was 
followed  by  disastrous  effects  on  the  Greek  Church  in  the 
dominion  of  the  Turks,  only  had  an  indirect  influence  on 
the  Church  in  Eussia.  Ecclesiastically  the  immediate 
consequence  was  the  gaining  of  independence.  The 
Eussians  were  no  longer  made  to  look  to  the  imperial 
patriarch  for  the  appointment  of  their  chief  pastor.  The 
metropolitan  was  now  elected  by  a  council  of  Eussian 
bishops.  Still,  there  was  no  breach  of  Church  unity ;  the 
Eussian  Church  remained  in  communion  with  the  oppressed 
Greek  Church,  as  a  branch  of  the  one  holy  orthodox 
Church,  and  was  still  nominally  subject  to  the  patriarch  of 
Constantinople.  Jonah,  who  had  been  appointed  after  a 
vacancy  of  eight  years  to  succeed  the  deposed  Isidore, 
was  the  last  primate  who  bore  the  title  "  Metropolitan 
of  Kiev."  His  successors  were  named  "  Metropolitan  of 
Moscow  and  of  all  Eussia,"     Thus  the  change  which  had 


THE    REVIVAL   OF    RUSSIA  393 

long  been  an  accomplished  fact  was  now  openly  recognised 
in  that  most  conservative  of  all  spheres — the  ecclesiastical 
vocabulary. 

Another  influence,  more  positive  in  character,  now 
came  in  to  advance  the  importance  of  the  Greek  Church. 
This  was  the  rise  of  Eussia  as  a  great  united  nation. 
Hitherto,  although  a  certain  common  life  had  pulsated 
through  the  populations  scattered  over  the  vast  area  which 
we  now  know  as  European  Eussia,  this  was  not  unified 
under  one  government.  We  have  seen  how  Lithuania 
established  independence  in  conjunction  with  Poland. 
Novgorod  was  also  virtually  unattached  to  the  southern 
Sclavs  and  administered  as  a  separate  republic.  Other  dis- 
tricts had  their  autonomy  under  different  princes.  Even 
the  chief  rulers  at  Kiev,  and  afterwards  at  Vladimir,  were 
regarded  as  princes,  or  grand  dukes,  not  as  kings  or 
emperors.  But  soon  after  the  destruction  of  the  Byzan- 
tine Empire  there  appeared  in  the  north  a  new  empire, 
the  Eussian  Empire.  Thus  the  rise  of  Eussia  as  a  great 
united  nation  nearly  synchronises  with  the  fall  of  the 
power  that  had  stood  for  Eome  in  the  East.  This  most 
important  historical  fact  was  mainly  brought  about  by  the 
ability  and  energy  of  Ivan  in.,  who  reigned  for  forty- 
three  years — from  a.d.  1462  to  a.d.  1505.  The  power 
of  the  horde  had  now  broken  up  and  crumbled  away, 
leaving  only  scattered  fragments,  such  as  the  Mongol 
settlement  in  the  Crimea.  A  strong  ruler  had  a  clear 
course  for  the  consolidation  of  his  nation.  Ivan  took  a 
politic  step  in  marrying  Zoe,  a  niece  of  the  heroic  Con- 
stantine  Palaeologus,  with  the  approval  of  Pope  Sixtus  IX., 
who  saw  in  the  match  a  hope  of  the  fulfilment  of  the 
dream  of  the  papacy  and  chief  end  of  all  its  diplomacy — 
the  union  of  Christendom  under  the  pope.  Here,  however, 
he  was  mistaken.  Zoe  proved  to  be  a  devoted  member  of 
the  Eastern  Church.  On  the  streugtli  of  this  connection 
with  the  Byzantine  imperial  family  Ivan  assumed  the 
cognisance  of  the  double-headed  eagle,  ever  afterwards  the 
badge  of  Eussia,  and  also  in  a  tentative  way  the  title  of 


394  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Tsar.^  It  was  a  broad  hint  that  the  empire  of  the  East 
which  had  perished  at  Constantinople  was  to  have  its 
resurrection  at  Moscow.  Ivan  laid  the  foundations  of 
empire  broad  and  deep.  He  was  anxious  to  encourage 
letters  and  civilisation,  and  he  welcomed  many  learned 
Greeks  who  came  to  Moscow  with  the  Princess  Zoe, 
bringing  precious  manuscripts  with  them.  In  some  degree 
Eussia  shared  in  the  scattering  of  pearls  of  learning  which 
followed  the  flight  of  the  scholars  from  Constantinople,  and 
brought  the  works  of  classic  literature,  together  with  the 
scholars  who  could  interpret  them,  to  Western  Europe. 
Moscow  never  enjoyed  the  Eenaissance,  as  that  wonderful 
awakening  was  enjoyed  by  Florence  and  Basle.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  must  be  remembered  that,  unlike  the 
benighted  West,  before  the  Mongol  invasion  Eussia  had 
been  in  close  touch  with  the  life  of  Constantinople. 
Italian  architects  also  visited  the  progressive  city  of 
Moscow.  The  most  important  of  these  was  Aristotle 
Eioraventi,  who  designed  many  of  the  most  important 
public  buildings. 

We  look  to  see  what  part  the  Church  had  in  the  life 
and  movement  of  the  new  age.  There  was  no  reformation 
in  Eussia.  That  is  the  first  broad  fact  to  be  noticed, 
differentiating  the  new  empire  of  the  tsars  from  the  West. 
Eussia  had  not  suffered  from  the  abuses  of  the  papacy  ; 
she  had  not  experienced  the  tyranny  of  the  popes  which 
drove  German  princes  to  revolt  quite  apart  from  the 
interests  of  religion  ;  she  had  no  doctrine  of  .purgatory 
and  no  sale  of  indulgences — Luther's  first  provocation. 
Not  entering  into  the  great  intellectual  awakening  which 
so  opened  men's  eyes  in  regard  to  religion  as  well  as 
secular  knowledge  that  in  England  it  was  popularly  known 
as  "  the  new  learning,"  she  missed  its  inspiration  of  new 

^  This  title— corresponding  to  the  Latin  "  Caesar  "—did  not  necessarily 
involve  a  claim  to  the  supreme  position,  since  that  had  lieen  designated  by 
the  higher  name  "Augustus."  Roman  emperors  had  given  dependent 
princes  the  honorary  designation  of  Csesar,  under  their  own  imperial 
suzerainship.  Nevertheless,  it  is  doubtful  whether  among  the  Russians 
in  this  late  age  the  distinction  was  recognised. 


THE    REVIVAL   OF    RUSSIA  395 

ideas.  Having  had  the  Bible  from  the  first  in  the  ver- 
nacular she  had  no  such  experience  as  that  which  resulted 
from  its  translation  into  Englisli  and  German,  and  the 
consequent  popularising  of  Scripture  as  a  long  lost  treasure 
gladly  recovered.  Lastly,  she  had  no  Luther,  no  Zwingli, 
no  John  Knox.  On  the  other  hand,  in  justice  to  the 
Sclavonic  race  represented  by  Eussia,  it  should  be  remem- 
bered that  John  Huss  was  a  Sclav  ;  and  in  some  respects 
John  Huss  was  the  parent  as  he  certainly  was  the  pre- 
cursor of  the  Eeformation  on  the  Continent.  Originating 
in  an  Englishman,  Wycliffe,  the  first  of  the  reformers 
before  the  Eeformation,  it  passed  through  Huss  the  Bohe- 
mian into  Germany,  and  so  came  back  from  the  Sclav  to 
the  Teuton  again. 

Now,  though  Eussia  did  not  need  reformation  to  the 
extent  that  was  requisite  in  Europe,  because  she  was  not 
suffering  from  the  specific  corruptions  of  the  Eoman  Church 
at  the  end  of  the  Middle  Ages,  she  had  her  own  super- 
stitions derived  from  a  still  earlier  period,  in  the  magical 
value  attached  to  icons  and  relics  by  the  mass  of  the 
people,  as  well  as  what  some  would  consider  to  be  the 
errors  of  both  branches  of  the  Church  in  their  departure 
from  the  primitive  type.  At  all  events,  in  so  far  as  the 
Eeformation,  over  and  above  its  Iconoclasm,  was  a  religious 
awakening,  to  Protestants  it  must  be  a  matter  of  regret 
that  Eussia  had  no  share  in  it.  The  common  habit  of 
treating  the  Western  Church  as  though  it  were  the  whole 
Church  has  resulted  in  regarding  the  Eeformation  as  a 
movement  stirring  Christendom  to  its  depths,  instead  of 
which  it  was  simply  a  Western  movement.  Great  churches 
occupying  vast  areas  of  Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa,  were  quite 
outside  its  range,  being  neither  scourged  by  the  evils  against 
which  it  protested  nor  favoured  with  the  factors  of  its  new 
hfe. 

The  consohdation  of  the  Eussian  Empire  under  Ivan  in. 
and  his  successors  was  accompanied  by  quite  another 
stimulus  to  devotion.  In  the  West  the  year  1000  had 
been  anticipated  with  terror  as  the  destined  date  of  the 


396  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

cud  of  the  world ;  a  similar  alarm  was  felt  in  Eussia 
towards  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  century,  ou  the  ground 
that  the  seven-thousandth  year  after  the  Creation  was 
approaching.  Then  the  boyars  showed  their  zeal  by  build- 
ing a  number  of  private  churches.  A  curious  result 
followed.  Priests  were  sent  to  private  churches  apart  from 
the  parochial  clergy.  Being  responsible  only  to  their 
patrons  who  had  appointed  and  who  alone  supported  them, 
they  were  indifferent  to  the  bishops  and  independent 
of  the  State,  since  they  did  not  live  upon  the  tithes. 
Accordingly,  these  chaplain  priests  were  charged  with 
insubordination  and  suspected  of  laxity  of  morals  due  to 
the'  absence  of  ecclesiastical  discipline.  We  must  not 
admit  this  scandal  too  readily,  knowing  the  source  from 
which  it  comes. 

Instead  of  the  dreaded  end  of  the  world,  what  Eussia 
now  came  to  experience  was  a  final  and  victorious  conflict 
with  the  Mongols.  The  Church  took  a  leading  part  in 
this  patriotic  effort.  An  old  man,  Bassian,  archbishop  of 
Eostoff,  encouraged  Ivan  with  the  utmost  enthusiasm, 
declaring  that  if  the  sovereign  would  not  go  he  would 
lead  the  assault ;  he  was  seconded  by  Gerontius  the  metro- 
politan, and  Ivan  set  out  to  attack  the  Mongols.  Their 
chief  Achmed  fled  without  striking  a  blow,  and  Eussia  was 
free  again. 

A  strange  light  is  thrown  on  the  mind  of  the  Church 
at  this  time  by  the  story  of  Gerontius's  successor,  the  metro- 
politan Zosimus.  This  man  had  been  appointed  by  Ivan 
without  the  consent  of  a  synod  (a.d.  1491).  He  was 
accused  of  adopting  "a  l)lasphemous  Jewish  heresy  which 
rejected  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  and  all  His  doctrine." 
A  Jew  named  Zachariali  was  said  to  have  brought  the 
heresy  from  Lithuania  to  Novgorod  twenty  years  before, 
and  to  have  seduced  two  priests  in  that  city,  Alexis  and 
Dionysius,  by  magic  and  cabalistic  art.  When  Zosimus 
was  at  Novgorod  he  met  the  two  priests,  and  was  so  drawn 
to  them  that  he  brought  them  with  him  back  to  Moscow, 
and  appointed  one  to  be  the  chief  priest  at  the  famous  new 


THE    RBVIVAL    OF    RUSSIA  397 

Church  of  the  Assumption  and  the  other  to  be  chief  priest 
of  the  Church  of  the  Archangel.  In  this  way  the  suspected 
teaching  was  introduced  to  the  very  heart  of  the  empire  on 
the  highest  ecclesiastical  authority.  The  heresy  which  the 
Jew  had  whispered  in  the  closet  was  now  preached  on  the 
housetop.  But  Gennadius,  the  Prince  of  Novgorod,  would 
not  let  the  matter  rest.  He  viewed  the  new  teaching  with 
horror,  and  induced  Ivan  and  Zosimus  to  summon  a  synod 
on  the  question.  Joseph  of  Volokolamsk  appeared  as  the 
eloquent  champion  of  orthodoxy,  and  the  heresy  was  con- 
demned. Alexis  had  already  passed  to  the  silence  "  beyond 
these  voices."  But  Dionysius  was  alive  to  receive  his 
anathema,  and  he  was  punished  with  imprisonment  in  a 
convent.  Zosimus  himself  was  spared  for  the  time  being. 
But  twelve  years  later  he  was  required  to  resign  by  Ivan 
and  sent  off  to  a  monastery  on  the  ostensible  ground  of 
drunkenness  (a.d.  1496).  So  grave  was  the  idea  of  the 
head  of  the  Church  being  guilty  of  heresy  that  this  shock- 
ing scandal  was  hushed  up  under  cover  of  what  was 
regarded  as  the  milder  evil  of  intemperance. 

After  this  the  new  metropolitan  Simon  presided  over 
a  synod  which  was  called  to  bring  about  a  reformation  of 
morals.  It  ordered  that  convents  for  women  should  be 
kept  apart  from  the  religious  houses  for  men,  and  that  no 
men  should  perform  Divine  service  in  them — a  drastic 
measure  tliat  throws  a  lurid  light  on  the  suspected  con- 
sequences of  the  visits  of  priests  to  these  convents  in 
discharge  of  the  duties  of  their  holy  office.  The  same 
synod  enacted  the  canon,  which  has  obtained  down  to 
our  own  day,  that  a  priest  must  give  uj)  his  cure  on 
the  death  of  his  wife  and  retire  into  a  monastery — so 
dangerous  did  the  Kussian  Church  consider  a  celibate 
priesthood  to  be.  Priests  of  unworthy  chaiacters  were  to 
be  deprived  of  their  posts  and  degraded  from  their  orders. 
The  enactments  of  this  synod  imply  a  recognition  of  serious 
moral  decay  in  the  Church. 

Meanwhile  practices  little  better  than  the  doings  of 
savages  were  witnessed  in  the  court.      One  physician — who 


398  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

had  staked  bis  head  in  undertaking  the  case — was  publicly 
executed  for  not  saving  the  life  of  Ivan's  eldest  son  whom 
he  was  called  in  to  cure ;  another — a  German — for  failing 
in  his  treatment  of  a  Tartar  prince  at  court,  was  put  to  the 
torture  by  the  chief's  son,  who  would  have  let  him  off  alive 
for  a  ransom.  The  grand  duke,  to  use  the  chronicler's 
title,  would  not  allow  this ;  so  "  they  took  him  to  the 
river  Moska,  under  the  bridge  in  winter,  and  cut  him  to 
pieces  with  a  knife,  like  a  sheep."  The  decay  of  morals  is 
further  reflected  in  the  Sudebuik,  a  code  of  laws  which 
Ivan  issued  in  the  year  1497  and  which  marks  the  second 
stage  in  Russian  jurisprudence,  the  first  being  seen  in  the 
Russkaya  Pravada}  Clearly  the  rise  of  the  tsardom  and 
the  consolidation  of  Eussia  into  a  great  empire,  while 
indicative  of  a  kind  of  progress,  and  while  really  associated 
with  a  certain  spread  of  culture,  must  not  be  confounded 
with  an  advance  of  the  people  in  those  higher  things 
that  make  for  a  nation's  real  greatness ;  nor  may  the 
corresponding  development  of  the  Church  be  taken  as  a 
proof  that  the  spirit  of  Christianity  was  becoming  a  power 
in  the  land. 

Ivan  III.  was  followed  by  his  son  Basil  (a.d.  1505), 
and  he  in  turn  by  his  son  Ivan  iv.,  known  as  "  Ivan  the 
Terrible."  ^  This  strong,  capable  ruler  was  the  first  to 
definitely  and  persistently  denominate  himself  tsar,  and 
so  make  a  bold,  open  claim  to  be  the  heir  of  the  Eoman 
Caesars,  or  at  least  their  equal.  His  grandfather  had  only 
used  the  title  casually  and  tentatively.  Ivan  iv.  had  no 
hesitation  about  the  adoption  of  it. 

Ivan  was  but  a  child  ten  years  old  when  his  father 
died  (a.d.  1533),  and  the  government  was  administered 
first  by  his  mother  and  then  by  the  boyars,  till  he  was 
able  to  take  it  up  himself.  For  a  time  he  ruled  well 
under  the  guidance  of  an  old  priest  of  Novgorod,  named 

1  P.  367. 

'  In  Russian  this  surname  means  one  to  be  reverenced  or  respected  ;  and 
it  was  originally  applied  to  Ivan  as  a  title  of  honour.  History,  however, 
has  justly  connected  it  with  its  more  ugly  signification. 


THE    REVIVAL   OP   RUSSIA  399 

Silvester.  At  the  age  of  seventeen  he  issued  a  revised 
edition  of  his  grandfather's  Sudebuik,  and  the  next  year 
the  Stoglat  or  "  Book  of  the  Hundred  Chapters  "  appeared. 
Its  object  was  to  reform  the  discipHne  of  the  Church,  and 
among  other  improvements  it  ordered  was  the  estabhshment 
of  schools  throughout  the  country,  where  reading,  writing, 
and  choral  singing  were  to  be  taught. 

The  second  half  of  Ivan's  reign  was  totally  different  in 
character.  He  had  greatly  increased  the  importance  of 
Eussia  by  his  military  achievements ;  but  later  on  he  grew 
suspicious  of  the  disaffection  of  the  boyars,  and  his  conduct 
bordered  on  insanity.  Ivan  now  went  about  the  country 
with  a  body  of  six  hundred  young  men,  whom  he  called 
his  "  Peculiars,"  burning  and  ravaging  his  towns  and  villages. 
He  claimed  the  lives  of  his  slaves,  the  Eussians,  as  his 
property.  In  a  fit  of  passion  he  kiUed  his  own  son.  Yet 
Ivan  was  religious  in  his  way.  He  prided  himself  on  his 
orthodoxy,  and  was  credited  with  being  able  to  repeat 
whole  chapters  of  the  Bible.  He  would  ring  the  bell  for 
matms  himself  and  call  up  his  court  at  all  hours  of  the 
night  to  attend  the  prayers.  When  at  Alexandrooskoe  he 
spent  most  of  his  time  in  church.  He  practised  severe 
asceticism  and  attempted  to  force  it  on  his  servants. 

One  metropolitan  after  another  fell  under  the  dis- 
pleasure of  the  pious  tyrant.  When  the  tsar's  insane 
degeneration  set  in,  Athanasius,  the  metropolitan  in  office 
at  the  time,  being  of  a  mild,  timid  nature,  retired  from  his 
responsible  post,  unable  to  meet  its  new  requirements. 
Ivan  then  appointed  Germanus,  the  archbishop  of  Kazan, 
a  good  old  man,  who  begged  to  be  excused  from  under- 
taking the  difficult  task  that  was  laid  upon  him.  But  the 
tsar  would  have  no  refusal.  Germanus,  forced  to  accept 
the  post,  now  resolved  to  do  his  duty  in  it.  He  at  once 
sought  an  interview  with  Ivan,  and  in  a  faithful,  earnest, 
fatherly  way,  urged  him  to  turn  from  his  ruinous  course. 
Such  impertinence  was  intolerable.  The  tsar  flung  himself 
into  a  rage,  and  forthwith  sent  the  old  bishop  back  to  his 
former  diocese. 


400  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Ivan's  next  choice  fell  on  a  friend  of  bis  childliood, 
the  monk  Thilip,  who  had  retired  to  the  wild  solitude  of 
the  Solovetsky,  where  liis  influence  was  stimulating  the 
monastery's  missionary  work  round  the  borders  of  the 
White  Sea.  In  bis  queer  way  the  tsar  felt  the  fascination 
of  the  venerable  man's  holiness,  and  chose  him  as  bis 
spiritual  adviser.  Philip  wept  at  the  compulsion  that 
dragged  him  from  his  retirement.  But  he  went  forth  with 
the  spirit  of  a  hero  and  a  martyr.  Karely  did  any  man 
undertake  a  more  perilous  duty.  He  would  gladly  have 
escaped  the  task ;  but  now  that  it  was  laid  upon  him,  like 
his  predecessor  Gerontius,  he  determined  to  discbarge  it 
faithfully  to  the  full.  Philip  called  on  the  bishops  to  help 
him  in  opposing  the  tsar's  tyrannical  conduct.  Some  were 
openly  conniving  at  it ;  others,  though  disapproving  dared 
not  offer  a  word  of  protest.  They  united  in  warning  the 
metropolitan  of  the  danger  to  Church  and  State  from 
irritating  the  tyrant.  But  Philip  would  not  hear  of  any 
compromise  with  iniquity.  On  the  day  of  his  consecration 
he  uttered  fearless  words  of  admonition  in  his  reply  to  the 
tsar's  address  of  recognition,  and  Ivan  submitted  to  them, 
being  at  present  under  the  spell  of  his  veneration  for  the 
speaker. 

It  was  not  long  before  a  fresh  outbreak  of  cruelty  on 
the  part  of  Ivan  sent  the  boyars  to  Philip  for  protection. 
Then  he  behaved  like  a  second  Ambrose,  but  under  very 
different  circumstances.  The  mad  Ivan  was  a  far  more 
dangerous  person  to  confront  than  Theodosius,  passionate 
Spaniard  though  he  was.  Yet  Philip  would  not  recognise 
Ivan  when  he  came  to  the  church  with  his  "  Peculiars," 
and  when  the  metropolitan's  attention  was  called  to  the 
tsar's  presence  he  refused  to  own  him.  When  Ivan  would 
have  silenced  the  bold  pastor  with  threats,  Philip  exclaimed, 
"  I  am  a  stranger  and  a  pilgrim  upon  earth,  as  all  my 
fathers  were,  and  I  am  ready  to  suffer  for  the  truth. 
Where  would  be  my  faith  if  I  kept  silence  ? "  ^ 

Although  the  tsar  left  the  church  in  a  towering  rage 
^  MouravieflF,  p.  115. 


THE    REVIVAL    OF    RUSSIA  401 

even  yet  he  did  not  dare  to  lay  violent  hands  on  the 
revered  metropolitan.  But  a  little  later  some  charge  was 
trumped  up  against  Philip,  and  a  slavish  law  court  then 
pronounced  his  deposition.  While  he  was  conducting  the 
liturgy  in  his  church  a  crowd  of  "  Peculiars  "  rushed  in  and 
stripped  him  to  his  shirt — a  brutal  act  ordered  by  the 
spiteful  tsar  in  revenge  for  the  public  rebuke  he  had 
received  in  church  from  the  metropolitan.  Dragged  before 
Ivan,  Philip  besought  the  tsar  to  mend  his  ways,  but  in 
vain.  Philip's  punishment  for  this  new  act  of  daring  was 
to  receive  the  bleeding  head  of  his  nephew  sent  by  the 
tsar  as  a  present  to  him  in  prison.  He  was  then  banished 
to  the  Otroch  Monastery  in  Tver,  where  after  a  short  time 
he  was  strangled  by  Ivan's  order.  The  story  of  Philip  is 
worth  telling  in  detail  for  the  sake  of  the  revelation  of 
a  noble  character  which  it  contains  ;  but  also  because  it 
relates  to  the  one  recognised  "  martyr  "  among  her  prelates 
in  the  Church  of  Kussia — a  Church  singularly  free  from 
persecution  during  the  whole  course  of  her  history. 

Ivan  reigned  for  fifty-one  years,  and  died  in  the  year 
1584.  His  career  has  been  a  puzzle  for  the  historians. 
Not  only  did  it  vary  greatly  in  character  during  successive 
periods,  but  throughout  it  revealed  a  nature  of  startling 
contrasts  and  inconsistencies.  The  cruel  tsar  was 
intensely  religious  in  his  own  way,  but  he  was  actively 
interested  in  literature  and  culture.  He  set  up  the  first 
printing  press  in  Moscow,  where  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
and  the  Epistles  were  printed  under  the  superintendence 
of  the  metropolitan  Macarius  during  the  happy  early  part 
of  this  reign.  A  little  later  the  tsar  had  a  copy  of  the 
Gospels  printed,  and  after  that  the  entire  Bible  was  printed 
in  Sclavonic  at  Kiev,  under  the  directions  of  Constantine  the 
deputy-governor. 

Some  of  Ivan's  actions  were  rather  the  achievements  of 
a  strong,  capable  ruler  than  the  doings  of  a  mere  despot, 
even  when  he  was  most  tyrannical.  In  the  course  of  the 
consolidation  of  Russia  he  destroyed  the  ancient  hberties  of 
Novgorod,  which  hitherto  had  governed  itself  as  a  practically 
26 


402  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

independent  republic.  This  may  be  compared  to  the  later 
policy  of  Kussia  in  invading  the  freedom  of  Finland.  It 
was  cruel  to  the  subjects ;  yet  it  was  regarded  as  a  political 
necessity  by  the  government.  Like  the  State,  the  Church 
at  Novgorod  was  in  a  way  self-contained.  In  the  earlier 
times,  throughout  the  rest  of  Russia  the  clergy  were  more 
or  less  Greek,  or  at  least  under  the  influence  of  the  Greek 
patriarch.  But  at  Novgorod  they  were  entirely  Eussian, 
and  the  archbishop  was  elected  by  the  citizens  without 
waiting  for  any  investiture  from  the  metropolitan  of  Kiev. 
He  took  the  first  place  of  dignity  in  the  repubhc;  in 
acts  of  State  his  name  was  cited  before  all  other  names. 
Novgorod  wanted  to  have  a  metropolitan ;  but  that  was 
not  allowed,  and  now  Ivan's  vigorous  action  put  an  end 
to  both  its  political  and  its  ecclesiastical  independence. 

The  remarkable  contrasts  which  the  life  of  Ivan 
contains  have  given  rise  to  conflicting  views  about  his 
character.  The  PoHsh  poet  Miqkiewicz  describes  him  as 
"  the  most  finished  tyrant  known  in  history."  The  historian 
Karamsin — in  his  eloquent  denunciation  of  this  tyrant 
which  he  read  to  Alexander  i.,  with  the  liberal  tsar's 
approval — writes,  "  His  conversion  would  have  scandalised 
the  world  and  shaken  belief  in  providence.  He  had 
advanced  too  far  into  heU  to  be  able  to  turn  back." 
Karamsin  regards  him  as  a  prince  born  vicious  and  cruel, 
miraculously  brought  into  ways  of  virtue  for  a  time,  and 
abandoning  himself  to  fury  in  his  later  years;  and 
Kostomarof  follows  on  similar  hnes.  On  the  other  hand, 
Soloviev  distrusts  the  partisan  tales  on  which  his  evil 
reputation  rests.  He  was  opposed  by  the  nobles  whose 
independence  he  was  limiting,  and  they  would  be  only 
too  ready  to  encourage  discreditable  stories  about  their 
ruler.  But  M.  Eamabaut  calls  attention  to  one  terribly 
significant  piece  of  evidence — a  document  preserved  at 
the  monastery  of  Cyril,  in  which  Ivan  asks  for  the  prayers 
of  the  Church  for  his  victims  by  name — how  characteristic 
is  this  of  his  mixture  of  religion  and  cruelty !  This 
document    coutuius    986    proper    names,    and    references 


THE    REVIVAL    OF    RUSSIA  403 

to  as  many  as  3,470  persons.  In  some  cases  a  name  is 
followed  by  one  of  the  clauses,  "  with  his  wife,"  "  with  his 
wife  and  children,"  "  with  his  son,"  "  with  his  daugliter." 
Probably  the  true  solution  of  the  problem  is  that  tliere  was 
a  strain  of  madness  in  the  tsar  which  first  showed  itself 
in  melancholia  during  a  time  of  seclusion,  and  tlien  at  the 
end  of  his  reign  in  some  approach  to  homicidal  mania.  A 
cruel,  self-willed,  passionate  tyrant,  of  great  ability,  energy, 
and  prowess,  successful  to  a  remarkable  degree  in  war, 
strong  and  wise  in  much  of  his  civil  government,  rigorous 
in  the  observances  of  religion  and  enforcing  the  same 
rigour  on  those  about  him,  Ivan  is  one  of  the  most  weird 
characters  in  all  history' — a  mad  genius,  doing  his  worst  to 
ruin  the  empire  he  had  built  up  with  magnificent  ability ; 
a  diabolical  devotee  wading  through  seas  of  blood  to  his 
untimely  prayers. 


CHAPTER    IV 

THE  PATRIARCHATE 

Books  named  in  Chap.  I. ;  also  Peter  Mogila,  Exposition  of  the 
Orthodox  Faith,  Eng.  trans.,  c.  1750 ;  The  Patriarch  and  the 
Tsar :  the  Replies  of  Nikon  (trans,  by  W.  Palmer),  1871 ; 
Palmer,  Dissertations  on  the  Orthodox  or  Eastern  Communion, 
1853. 

The  reign  of  Ivan's  son,  the  amiable,  feeble  Feodor,  is 
noteworthy  in  Church  history  as  the  time  when  the  brief 
patriarchate  of  Moscow  was  established.  Hitherto  there 
had  been  five  patriarchs — the  patriarchs  of  Eome,  Con- 
stantinople, Antioch,  Alexandria,  and  Jerusalem.  But  Eome 
was  now  apostate.  Like  Matthias  who  was  chosen  to  fill 
Judas's  vacant  place,  the  patriarch  of  Moscow  was  to  make 
up  the  normal  number  again.  The  piety  of  Feodor  is 
credited  with  the  idea  of  this  daring  ecclesiastical  innovation ; 
but  circumstances  had  prepared  the  way  for  it.  The  fall 
of  Constantinople  and  the  loss  of  liberty  suffered  by  its 
patriarchs  under  the  Turks ;  the  spread  of  Christianity 
over  Eussia  and  the  shifting  of  the  centre  of  gravity  of 
Oriental  Christianity  from  the  Greek  to  the  Sclavonic 
peoples ;  the  removal  of  the  metropolitan  from  Kiev  to 
Vladimir,  and  then  his  settlement  at  Moscow,  in  the  very 
heart  of  Eussia,  so  far  away  from  Constantinople ;  the 
centralising  of  government  in  the  hands  of  the  tsar  and 
the  consequent  consolidation  of  the  vast  area  over  which 
his  sway  extended  ;  the  printing  of  the  Bible  and  other 
books  in  the  language  of  the  people ;  and  the  Eussianising 
of  the  Church  and  exclusion  of  Greek  elements — all  these 
factors  combined  to  render  the  now  merely  nominal  subjec- 

404 


THE    PATRIARCHATE  40 T) 

tion  of  the  Church  in  Eussia  to  the  patriarch  of  Constanti- 
nople an  anachronism  and  an  inconvenience. 

It  was  under  these  circumstances  that  Joachim  the 
patriarch  of  Antioch  paid  a  visit  to  tlie  metropolitan 
Dionysius  at  Moscow  in  the  year  1580,  in  order  to  seek 
aid  for  his  poverty-stricken  people.  Dionysius  stood  on 
his  dignity  in  giving  the  benediction  to  his  visitor  in  the 
first  instance,  instead  of  humbly  submitting  to  the  blessing 
of  an  ecclesiastical  superior  and  returning  it.  The  tsar 
then  proposed  to  his  boyars  the  suitability  of  establish- 
ing a  patriarchate  at  Moscow,  and  sent  one  of  them  to 
discuss  the  question  with  Joachim,  who  replied  that  it  was 
a  matter  that  could  only  be  settled  by  an  oecumenical 
council,  but  promised  to  consult  the  other  patriarchs 
about  it. 

Two  years  later,  Jermiah  il.,  the  patriarch  of  Constan- 
tinople, followed  the  example  of  his  brother  at  Antioch, 
and  came  to  Moscow  on  a  similar  errand.  It  is  painful 
to  see  how  in  both  cases  the  need  of  pecuniary  aid 
introduces  a  sordid  element  into  the  consideration  of  the 
tsar's  proposal.  The  Greeks  hoped  to  gain  something  by 
the  friendship  of  Russia,  and  the  Russians  were  not  slow  to 
take  advantage  of  their  poverty  and  weakness.  Jeremiah 
had  been  imx^risoned  at  Rhodes  by  the  sultan,  and,  though 
now  at  liberty,  he  found  himself  in  desperate  straits  when 
he  threw  himself  on  the  compassion  of  his  fellow-Christians 
in  Russia.  He  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  a  free  agent. 
Nevertheless  at  first  he  resisted  the  tsar's  proposal.  He 
was  an  old  man  and  learned,  and  the  chief  custodian  of 
the  now  ossified  customs  of  the  Greek  Church.  So  great 
an  innovation  must  have  startled  him  when  he  heard 
of  it  from  his  brother  prelate,  the  patriarch  of  Antioch. 
But  he  had  had  time  to  think  it  over  since  then ;  and  in- 
asmuch as  he  came  to  Moscow  of  his  own  accord,  well 
knowing  what  was  desired  there,  he  must  have  been 
prepared  to  face  the  question.  He  really  had  no  alternative 
but  to  yield,  and  he  may  have  taken  a  common-sense  view 
of  the  whole  case.     After  all,  the  new  step  was  inevitable. 


406  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

So  Jeremiah  gave  his  reluctant  consent,  and  the  new 
patriarchate  was  established  without  the  cecumenical  council 
which  Joachim  liad  said  was  necessary  for  the  origination 
of  it. 

A  synod  of  all  the  Eussian  bishops  was  now  summoned 
at  Moscow  (a.d.  1587);  and  this  synod  submitted  three 
names  to  the  tsar,  who  at  once  chose  the  first  of  them, 
the  metropolitan  Job.  The  newly  appointed  patriarch 
was  addressed  as  "  oecumenical  lord,"  and  treated  with 
the  ceremonial  honours  so  important  in  the  eyes  of  an 
oriental  court,  which  were  scrupulously  equated  with  those 
assigned  by  ancient  custom  to  his  guest,  the  patriarch  of 
Constantinople.  But  beyond  this  accession  of  dignity  the 
patriarch  of  Moscow  had  acquired  no  more  real  power  than 
had  been  secured  already  by  the  metropolitan.  Now,  how- 
ever, Novgorod  was  able  to  get  its  desire.  The  supremacy 
of  Moscow  being  assured,  there  was  no  longer  any  objection 
to  having  a  metropolitan  at  Novgorod.  Accordingly,  one 
of  Job's  first  acts  in  the  patriarchate  was  to  raise  the 
bishop  of  the  northern  city  to  the  position  of  metropolitan ; 
at  the  same  time  he  made  the  bishop  of  Eostotf  also  a 
metropolitan.  A  year  or  two  later  the  Bulgarian  metro- 
politan Tirnoff,  a  descendant  of  the  imperial  families  of  the 
Cantacuzenes  and  Palaeolugi,  came  to  Moscow,  charged  with 
synodical  letters  from  the  three  patriarchs  of  Constan- 
tinople, Antioch,  and  Jerusalem,  confirming  the  appointment 
of  Job  as  patriarch  of  Moscow.  Thus  the  new  patriarchate 
was  firmly  established  and  duly  recognised. 

We  are  now  approaching  the  time  known  as  "  the 
period  of  troubles."  During  the  disorganisation  of  the 
civil  government  that  followed  the  death  of  Feodor  (a.d. 
1598)  the  Church  came  to  the  front  as  the  chief  permanent 
institution  of  the  Russian  nation,  and  the  patriarch  of 
Moscow  stood  out  as  the  one  visible  centre  of  unity.  In 
this  way  the  temporary  weakness  of  the  tsardom  led  to 
the  temporary  elevation  of  the  patriarchate.  We  shall  see 
later  how  the  appearance  of  a  strong  tsar  was  followed 
by  the  total  and  final  abolition  of  the  patriarchate.     Mean- 


THE   PAXRIARCHATE  407 

while,   however,  the  oflfice  was  rendering  good  service  to 
the  State  as  well  as  to  the  Church. 

A  fresh  attempt  was  now  made  to  win  over  Russia 
by  the  Church  of  Rome.  This  began  in  the  lifetime  of 
Feodor,  who  had  offered  himself  as  a  candidate  for  the 
kingship  of  Poland  and  Lithuania.  Sigismund  of  Sweden 
was  chosen,  and  he  proved  himself  a  zealot  for  Rome, 
and  roused  so  fierce  an  anti-Russian  feeling  that  his 
people  were  excited  to  a  sort  of  crusade,  which  ultimately 
issued  in  the  burning  and  sacking  of  Moscow.  Terrible 
persecutions  of  tlie  "  orthodox  "  were  perpetrated  by  the 
followers  of  tlie  "  union."  At  an  early  stage  of  the  con- 
flict the  Swedes  devastated  the  lands  of  the  Solovetsky 
Monastery  and  some  smaller  convents.  A  little  later  the 
Khan  of  the  Crimea  invaded  Russia  and  besieged  Moscow. 
Then  the  patriarch  Job  sent  his  clergy  round  the  walls 
chanting  litanies  and  carrying  the  icon  of  "  our  Lady  of 
tlie  Don,"  after  which  he  had  it  set  up  in  a  tent  in 
the  midst  of  the  troops,  like  the  ark  in  the  tabernacle. 
Feodor,  who  was  showing  no  energy  in  the  defence  of 
his  city,  calmly  went  to  bed,  assured  that  the  spiritual 
protection  secured  by  his  patriarch  would  be  sufficient. 
But  the  real  protector  of  Moscow  was  Feodor's  brother-in- 
law,  Boris  (xodunolT,  the  masterful  head  of  the  government, 
who  strongly  fortified  the  city  and  succeeded  in  driving 
off  the  Mongols. 

A  movement  was  now  sedulously  fomented  in  Little 
Russia  to  induce  the  bishops  of  that  district  to  consent  to 
union  with  Rome.  It  is  said  that  two  bishops  were  got 
to  sign  a  request  to  King  Sigismund  and  the  pope  for  the 
union  as  though  in  the  name  of  a  synod,  on  the  pretence 
that  it  was  a  petition  for  new  priveleges  for  the 
orthodox  Church.  Hearing  of  this,  Jeremiah  the  patriarch 
of  Constantinople — who  does  not  appear  to  have  acted  as 
though  he  had  handed  over  his  authority  in  this  region 
to  his  brotlier  at  Moscow — wrote  to  the  two  bishops  that 
he  should  deprive  them  of  their  offices  if  they  yielded  to 
Rome,  and  other  ecclesiastics  protested.     Then  Ignatius,  the 


408  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

leader  of  the  movement,  assembled  a  council  at  Brest 
Litovsky,  which  he  opened  with  a  speech  in  favour  of 
union.  Many  discussions  followed.  In  the  end  the  metro- 
politan Michael  was  gained  over,  and  then  he  and  four 
bishops  signed  a  synodical  letter  consenting  to  union  on  the 
terms  of  the  council  of  Florence,  but  with  the  proviso  that 
the  discipline  and  ceremonies  of  the  Eastern  Church  were  to 
be  preserved.  Meanwhile  the  two  bishops  whose  signatures 
to  the  earlier  document  had  been  obtained  by  false 
pretences  discovered  and  exposed  the  fraud.  At  the  same 
time  a  great  outcry  was  raised  against  the  five  apostates  at 
Brest.  Accordingly  a  second  synod  was  assembled  at  this 
border  town.  It  consisted  entirely  of  the  orthodox  party. 
The  churches  were  all  in  the  hands  of  the  party  of  the 
union,  and  the  synod  had  to  meet  in  a  private  house. 
The  metropolitan  refused  to  answer  two  summonses  to 
attend.  Then  the  synod  pronounced  an  anathema  on  him, 
and  also  on  all  the  apostate  bishops.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Uniats  held  their  synod  in  a  church,  where  they  pronounced 
their  anathema  on  the  orthodox.     The  result  was  a  schism. 

Kome  admitted  the  Uniates  on  remarkably  liberal 
terms.  They  were  to  retain  their  own  ceremonies  and 
even  their  own  form  of  the  creed.  All  that  was  required 
of  them  was  submission  to  the  pope.  The  Uniats  had  the 
upper  hand  both  in  Poland  and  in  Lithuania,  and  they 
used  their  power  to  persecute  both  the  orthodox  party  and 
also  the  protestants  who  were  found  in  these  parts. 

The  ancient  cathedral  of  St.  Sophia  of  Kiev  was  taken 
from  the  orthodox  and  held  for  a  time  by  the  Uniats. 
But  the  apostate  metropolitan  did  not  dare  to  make  it  his 
centre,  and  he  resided  in  safer  quarters  at  Novgorod. 
An  effort  was  made  to  seize  the  famous  Pechersky 
Monastery ;  but  this  failed.  Subsequently  much  of  the 
property  of  the  orthodox  monasteries  was  sequestrated, 
and  Dominican  convents  were  established  in  various 
parts  of  the  country.  This  extraordinary  condition  of 
affairs,  in  which  no  orthodox  bishops  were  appointed  for 
Little  Eussia,  went  on  for  over  twenty  years. 


THE    PATRIARCHATE  409 

The  disorders  that  next  afflicted  Eiissia  were  occasioned 
by  one  of  the  most  amazingly  successful  impostures  ever 
known  to  history.  A  pretender  personated  young  Prince 
Dmitri,  a  son  of  Ivan  the  Terrible,  who  had  died,  probably 
murdered,  some  years  before.  This  clever  man  was  able  to 
fight  his  way  to  Moscow  and  to  reign  there  for  some  troublous 
years  as  Tsar  of  Eussia.  In  the  civil  war  thus  occasioned  the 
Church  was  seriously  affected,  and  monks  and  bishops  were 
directly  involved.  One  man  in  particular  now  comes  to 
the  front,  both  on  account  of  his  vigorous  activity  at  the 
time,  and  because  his  name  has  become  famous  in  the 
light  of  subsequent  history.  This  is  Philaret  Eomanoff, 
the  ancestor  of  the  now  reigning  imperial  family  of  Eussia. 
The  house  of  Euric,  the  founder  of  the  Eussian  princedom 
at  Kiev,  became  extinct  at  the  death  of  Dmitori.  The 
new  family  of  tsars  was  not  yet  in  evidence.  But  during 
the  time  of  confusion  that  intervened,  its  first  known 
ancestor  was  already  a  person  of  importance  in  national 
and  ecclesiastical  affairs.  Philaret  was  metropolitan  of 
Eostoff.  When  the  city  was  attacked  by  the  pretender's 
party,  most  of  the  inhabitants  fled ;  but  the  bishop  held  his 
ground,  shut  himself  up  in  his  cathedral  with  those  who 
refused  to  ^esert  him,  and  there  celebrated  the  liturgy  as 
usual.  The  rebels  broke  in,  to  find  him  preaching  to  his 
people.  They  seized  hold  of  Philaret,  tore  off  his  episcopal 
robes,  and  dragged  him  out  of  the  place,  half  dead  from  their 
violent  handling.  At  Moscow  the  Trinity  laura  became  a 
citadel  of  defence  and  supported  a  siege  of  sixteen  months, 
when  attacked,  it  is  said,  by  an  army  of  80,000  men  with 
sixty  cannons  pouring  shot  on  its  walls  and  churches.  On 
the  side  of  the  monastery  eight  hundred  men  fell ;  but  still 
the  place  held  out.  Twice  it  supplied  Moscow  itself  with 
food.  So  wonderful  an  endurance  was  only  accounted  for 
by  the  protecting  presence  of  two  saints,  Sergius  and  Nicon, 
who  were  believed  to  appear  to  the  valiant  defenders  in 
visions  or  dreams.  This  monastery  was  now  the  heart  of 
the  defence  of  Eussia  against  an  impudent,  lying  usurpa- 
tion.    At  the  same  time   the  patriarch  Hermogenes  was 


410  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

exerting  all  his  influence  to  check  the  imposture.  To  add 
to  the  miseries  of  the  time,  the  Poles  ravaged  the  country, 
and  seized  and  burnt  its  capital,  deposed  Hermogenes,  and 
imprisoned  him  in  a  monastery,  where  he  was  starved  to 
death  (ad.  1612).  The  Greek  Ignatius,  a  follower  of  the 
pseudo-Dmitri,  was  now  set  up  as  patriarch  of  Eussia. 
Meanwhile  the  monks  and  their  supporters  in  the  Trinity 
Monastery  still  held  out.  At  length  its  devoted  patriotism 
and  loyalty  to  its  Church  were  rewarded.  Gradually  the 
infection  of  heroism  spread.  A  fast  of  purification  was 
observed  all  over  Eussia.  The  new  spirit  now  awakening 
in  the  people  infused  itself  into  an  army  of  rescue.  The 
Poles  were  defeated ;  the  Kremlin  was  captured ;  and 
Philaret's  young  son  Michael  was  elected  tsar  in  the 
Trinity  Monastery  (a.d.  1613). 

The  new  tsar  showed  his  gratitude  to  the  Church  and 
his  appreciation  of  its  support  by  uniting  a  council  of 
bishops  to  the  council  of  the  boyars.  In  this  way  the 
Church  was  represented  in  the  government  of  Eussia  as  it 
is  in  that  of  England  by  the  presence  of  the  bishops  in  the 
House  of  Lords.  Much  against  his  will,  Philaret,  now  old 
and  worn  with  the  hardships  he  had  endured,  was  elected 
patriarch ;  and  thus  father  and  son  stood  at  the  head  of 
Church  and  State  as  patriarch  and  tsar.  The  two  together 
effected  several  important  administrative  reforms  both  in 
civil  and  in  ecclesiastical  affairs.  Centralisation  was  aimed 
at  throughout.  Courts  were  established  at  Moscow  for  try- 
ing affairs  concerning  the  provincial  towns,  and  even  the 
governors  were  made  subject  to  these  courts.  Similarly  the 
archimandrites  of  the  monasteries  and  the  priests  and 
deacons  and  other  clerical  officers  were  put  under  the  juris- 
diction of  the  patriarch  in  all  except  capital  cases.  On 
the  other  hand,  Michael  confirmed  his  father's  edict  for- 
bidding the  monasteries  to  acquire  any  more  real  property. 
By  this  time  a  large  part  of  the  land  of  Eussia  had  come 
into  the  hands  of  the  monks.  The  growth  of  the  Church 
is  seen  in  the  continual  increase  in  the  number  of  dioceses. 
One  addition,  the  bishopric  of  Astrachan,  organised  earlier, 


THE    PATRIARCHATE  411 

was  a  sign  of  the  extension  of  Kussia  in  Asia  that  was 
now  going  on.  Two  dioceses  in  Tobolsk  and  Siberia  were 
added  (a.d.  1623).  Philaret  prepared  a  new  Trehuik,  or 
book  of  ritual/  and  other  service  books. 

Modern  Western  scholarship  was  now  gradually  trick- 
ling into  Kussia,  though  only  in  slender  rills,  which  left 
the  greater  part  of  the  empire  intellectually  dry  and 
barren.  The  most  prominent  leader  in  this  movement 
was  Peter  Mogila.  He  had  been  educated  at  the  university 
of  Paris,  had  served  as  a  distinguished  soldier  in  the  Polish 
war,  and  had  subsequently  taken  the  tonsure  and  retired 
to  the  Pechersky  Monastery,  of  which  in  course  of  time 
he  was  made  archimandrite.  No  sooner  was  Mogila  in 
charge  of  this  great  monastery  than  he  established  a  school, 
from  which  he  sent  the  more  promising  students  to  uni- 
versities in  Western  Europe,  Cyril  Lucar  took  note  of 
his  intellectual  activity  and  appointed  him  exarch  of  his 
See.  Peter  Mogila  was  more  competent  to  appreciate  the 
various  aspects  of  the  age-long  controversy  with  Rome 
than  any  previous  defenders  of  orthodoxy  had  been.  He 
had  a  printing  press,  from  which  he  issued  editions  of  the 
Fathers,  and  service  books  carefully  edited  in  the  interest 
of  orthodoxy,  in  order  to  counteract  the  service  books  cir- 
culated by  the  Uniats.  This  is  a  curious  feature  of  the 
polemics  of  the  Ptussian  Church  and  most  significant  of 
the  importance  attached  to  ritual.  Very  few  people  could 
read ;  sermons  were  rarely  preached.  Apart  from  the 
schools,  which  could  not  have  been  numerous,  most  of  the 
people  got  their  religious  instruction  from  the  contemplation 
of  pictures  and  from  attendance  at  the  services.  The  icons 
were  worshipped  as  mere  fetishes ;  still,  to  thoughtful 
people  many  of  them  conveyed  historical  and  allegorical 
lessons.  Then  the  ritual  was  all  symbolical,  and  the  words 
of  the  service  books  embodied  the  dogmas  of  the  faith. 
For   most   people  these  were  the  only  verbal  or  literary 

1  The  Trebnik  is  like  the  Roman  ritual,  a  book  directing  the  rites  for 
all  the  sacraments  except  the  communion,  which  is  regulated  by  the  ritual 
of  the  Liturgy,  corresponding  to  the  Roman  mass. 


•412  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

presentations  of  orthodoxy.  Accordingly  both  parties 
manipulated  them  for  their  own  purposes.  The  Uniats 
altered  them  so  as  to  favour  Eoman  Catholicism,  and  the 
orthodox  ruled  out  these  innovations  and  brought  them 
more  into  line  with  the  authorised  teaching  of  the  Eastern 
Church.  But  Peter  Mogila  did  more  than  this.  He  broke 
the  silence  of  centuries  which  had  brooded  over  the  ice- 
bound sea  of  Greek  theology,  and  published  a  Confession 
of  Faith,  which  was  written  partly  by  himself  and  partly 
under  his  direction  by  the  archimandrite  Isaiah  Trophiuio- 
vich.  It  was  subsequently  revised  by  •  Meletius  Syriga, 
and  in  its  newer  form  it  passed  into  the  Eussian  Church 
proper,  where  it  is  still  acknowledged  as  a  standard 
authority.  This  catechism  was  not  only  intended  to 
defend  the  orthodoxy  of  the  Church  against  Eoman  errors , 
it  was  also  issued  as  a  safeguard  against  Calvinism,  which 
was  now  penetrating  into  Poland  and  Little  Eussia. 

In  the  year  1643  there  was  held  a  synod  at  Jassy  in 
Moldavia,  which  condemned  the  doctrines  of  Calvinism. 
Peter  Mogila  and  four  Eussian  bishops  signed  the  acts  of 
this  synod.  Thus,  while  as  the  most  learned  prominent 
theologian  of  his  country  Mogila  took  the  lead  in  the 
campaign  against  Eomanism,  he  was  equally  decided  in 
his  opposition  to  Protestantism.  He  was  not  drawn  into 
the  tentative  alliance  between  the  two  great  opposing 
forces  that  were  contending  with  the  papacy,  which  might 
have  become  a  mighty  force  changing  the  current  of  the 
history  of  Christendom,  if  Cyril  Lucar's  large  -  minded 
liberal  policy  had  been  pursued.  The  Eussian  Church 
has  never  been  liberal.  More  than  once  reforming  itself  in 
morals  and  discipline,  it  is  intensely  conservative  in 
doctrine  and  ritual.  Thus  its  literature  is  almost  wholly 
devoted  to  apologetics  and  liturgiology.  Scholarship,  not 
speculation,  characterises  its  most  intellectual  leaders. 

There  are  many  instances  of  great  scholarship  among 
the  Eussian  ecclesiastics.  Thus  Philaret's  successor  Joseph 
was  celebrated  for  his  learning,  and  Michael  conferred 
with   him   and  the    bishops    in    regard  to   a    project    for 


THE   PATRIARCHATE  413 

a  common  codification  of  civil  and  ecclesiastical  law. 
This  great  work  was  carried  out,  however,  by  boyars  and 
ministers  of  State. 

By  far  the  most  famous  of  all  the  patriarchs  of 
Moscow  is  Nicon,  who  followed  Joseph  after  an  interval. 
His  long  life  extends  over  the  whole  of  the  patriarchal 
period.  He  was  born  before  the  first  patriarch  was 
appointed ;  and  he  lived  to  see  the  patriarchate  super- 
seded by  the  Holy  Synod.  The  child  of  a  peasant  home 
at  Nijgorod,  he  learned  to  read  the  Scriptures  in  early  life, 
and  he  was  so  moved  by  them  that  he  resolved  to  devote 
himself  to  the  service  of  God.  Following  the  custom  of 
his  age  and  Church,  he  understood  this  to  mean  becoming 
a  monk.  He  left  home  secretly,  and  was  about  to  com- 
mence his  novitiate  in  the  monastery  of  Jeltovodsky.  But 
his  father  discovered  him  and  persuaded  him  to  return 
home,  marry,  and  become  a  priest.  It  was  against  his 
own  judgment,  and  he  afterwards  took  the  death  of  all  his 
children  as  a  call  to  return  to  his  earlier  aims.  Nicon 
now  induced  his  wife  to  enter  a  convent,  and  he  himself 
retreated  to  the  distant  northern  monastery  of  Solovetsky. 
After  a  time  he  sought  still  deeper  seclusion  in  an  island 
hermitage  amid  the  ice  of  the  White  Sea.  In  the  year 
1646  he  submitted  to  the  urgent  entreaty  of  the  monks 
of  Kojeozersky,  and  was  appointed  to  the  headship  of  their 
monastery.  This  position  following  on  the  fame  of  his 
asceticism  led  to  his  being  regarded  as  a  leader  of  the 
Church,  and  he  had  to  visit  Moscow  in  connection  with 
ecclesiastical  affairs  (a.d.  1649).  There  he  came  under 
the  notice  of  the  new  tsar.  Michael  had  died  in  the  year 
before  Nicon's  appointment  to  Kojeozersky  and  had  been 
succeeded  by  his  son  Alexis  (a.d.  1 645),  an  intelligent,  if  not 
a  strong  ruler,  anxious  to  promote  moral  reform,  Western 
culture,  and  general  progress.  Attracted  by  the  noble  bear- 
ing and  vigorous  eloquence  of  Nicon,  Alexis  appointed  Mm 
archimandrite  of  the  Novospassky  Monastery,  where  the 
members  of  the  Eomanoft'  family  were  buried.  He  was  now 
brought  into  frequent  contact  with  the   tsar,  who  came  to 


414  THE   GREEK    AND  EASTERN    CHURCHES 

lean  upon  his  advice  in  regard  to  matters  of  State  as  well 
as  in  ecclesiastical  business.  Three  years  later  Alexis  made 
him  metropolitan  of  Novgorod,  and  he  then  had  the  ex- 
ceptional honour  of  being  consecrated  by  the  patriarch  of 
Jerusalem,  who  happened  to  be  in  Eussia  at  the  time  on 
one  of  the  begging  expeditions  to  which  the  once  venerated 
chief  bishops  of  the  Greek  Church  were  compelled  to 
humiliate  themselves. 

Nicon  was  now  entrusted  with  great  power.  For 
instance,  he  had  the  right  to  enter  the  prisons,  hear  the 
prisoners'  complaints,  and  if  he  thought  them  innocent, 
order  their  release ;  so  that  his  position  in  this  respect  was 
something  like  that  of  the  English  Home  Secretary.  He 
proved  his  heroism  during  a  riot,  when  he  faced  the  mob 
and  was  knocked  down  and  left  for  dead  in  the  square  at 
Novgorod.  Helped  up  by  his  assistants,  he  persisted  in 
penetrating  to  the  most  dangerous  part  of  the  city,  walking 
in  procession  with  the  cross,  and  actually  entered  the 
building  where  the  rebels  were  assembled.  Struck  with 
admiration  for  his  intrepidity,  they  did  not  molest  him  any 
more.  The  rebellion  went  on  for  a  time.  But  at  last 
Nicon  was  able  to  quell  it  by  his  personal  influence. 

In  matters  of  religion  Nicon  was  also  felt  to  be  a  great 
leader.  Preaching  was  now  almost  extinct  in  the  Russian 
Church.  Dreary  homilies  prescribed  by  authority  and 
monotonously  read  took  the  place  of  real  sermons.  The 
services  consisted  for  the  most  part  of  the  chanting  of 
long  archaic  liturgies  on  the  part  of  the  priests,  unintelligible 
to  a  later  generation,  or  genuflections  and  prostrations  by 
the  congregation.  Nicon  revived  the  practice  of  preaching. 
His  sermons  were  scriptural  in  teaching  and  full  of  life  and 
power.  Crowds  gathered  to  hear  him,  and  felt  the  spell 
of  his  eloquence.  We  may  regard  him  as  the  Chrysostom 
of  the  Russian  Church.  Nicon  also  reformed  the  order  of 
the  liturgical  service,  which  had  drifted  into  confusion,  and 
improved  the  singing  arrangements  after  the  model  of  the 
Greek  chanting. 

Saint  worship   was   as    characteristic   of    the   Russian 


THE    PATRIARCHATE  415 

Church  as  of  the  Roman — perhaps  more  so.  Advised  by 
Nicon,  Alexis  convoked  a  solemn  synod  in  honour  of  the 
three  dead  prelates — Job,  Hermogenes,  and  Philip — with 
the  object  of  bringing  their  remains  to  the  church  of  the 
Assumption.  Nicon  himself  went  to  the  remote  Solovetsky 
Monastery  to  fetch  the  body  of  the  martyred  Philip,  who 
was  addressed  as  though  living,  in  an  appeal  from  the  tsar 
that  he  would  come  to  Moscow  and  absolve  the  spirit  of 
Ivan  who  was  buried  there.  A  more  curious  embassy  was 
never  despatched.  It  was  directed  to  the  spirit  of  the 
saint  which  was  thought  to  be  accessible  at  the  place 
where  his  bones  were  lying;  he  was  requested  to  grant 
permission  for  their  removal'^  with  them  he  would  come 
himself.  The  spirit  of  the  old  mad  tsar  was  also  supposed 
to  haunt  his  own  mouldering  remains.  Therefore,  of  course, 
the  martyr  could  bring  relief  to  the  lost  soul  by  the  coming 
of  his  body  into  the  place  where  Ivan's  body  was  buried. 
This  is  an  application  of  the  ideas  of  relic  worship  that 
exceeds  all  precedents.  It  illustrates  the  character  of  the 
Russian  religion  of  the  seventeenth  century  in  the  person  of 
one  of  the  most  enlightened  of  rulers.  Then  what  must 
that  religion  have  meant  to  ignorant  peasants,  villagers  living 
in  remote  regions  of  the  vast  empire,  cut  off  from  the 
metropolis  by  wolf-scoured  forests  ? 

In  the  year  1653,  after  long  resisting  the  entreaties 
of  Alexis,  Nicon  accepted  the  position  of  patriarch  of 
Moscow,  which  had  been  vacant  for  some  time,  since 
the  death  of  his  predecessor  Joseph.  We  cannot  always 
penetrate  to  the  motives  which  lie  behind  the  tradi- 
tional nolo  episcopari ;  but  in  the  present  case  we  can  see 
that,  quite  apart  from  any  ascetic  abnegation  of  ambition, 
Nicon  would  perceive  the  serious  difficulties  of  the  position 
offered  to  him.  Two  sections  of  the  community  were  already 
opposed  to  him — the  ecclesiastics  who  resented  his  dis- 
ciplinary reforms,  and  the  boyars  who  were  jealous  of  the 
imperial  favouritism  that  he  enjoyed.  But  no  sooner  were 
his  objections  overborne  by  the  entreaties  of  his  friend  and 
master  the  tsar,  than  Nicon  threw  himself  into  the  duties 


41 G  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

of  his  exalted  position  with  his  customary  fearless  energy. 
In  the  first  place,  he  revised  the  service  books.     It  has 
been   considered  that   his  most  important  reform  in   this 
matter  was  a  correcticm  of  the  position  of  the  fingers  in 
the  benediction.      According  to  the  Greek  posture — which 
differs  from  the  Latin — the  ring  finger  is  bent  so  as  to 
touch  the  thumb  and  thus  represent  X  for  "  Christ,"  ^  and 
also  for  the  cross,  while  the  first  finger  being  upright  and 
the  second  a  little  curved,  those  fingers  perhaps  represent 
I  C,   the   initial  and  final  letters  of  "  Jesus."  ^      So  great 
importance  was   attached   to  this  symbolism,  that  irregu- 
larities in  regard  to  it  were  severely  punished.     On  the 
other  hand,  Nicon's  discipline  in  dealing  with  the  prevalent 
laxity  of  finger  posture  increased  the  number  of  his  enemies. 
To  us  his  literary  emendations  may  be   more   interesting. 
Alexis    took  the    greatest    interest    in  a    revision   of    the 
Sclavonic  version  of  the  Bible.     This  was  carried  out  under 
the  directions  of  Nicon,  who  got  five  hundred  manuscripts 
of  the  Scriptures  and  other  books  from  Mount  Athos  for  the 
correction  of   the  text,  which  had  become  very  corrupt.^ 
Nicon's  revisions  of  service  books  and  Bible  were  confirmed 
at   a   synod   of   Greek   bishops   convoked   by   Paisius   the 
patriarch  of  Constantinople.      In  sending  this  decision  to 
Nicon,  Paisius   urged   him   to   preserve   the   unity  of  the 
orthodox  Church  under  the  five  patriarchs  of   Constanti- 
nople, Alexandria,  Antioch,  Jerusalem,  and   Moscow,   but 
at    the  same  time  begged  him  to  be  indulgent   to    those 
who  erred  in  unimportant  matters.      Unhappily  this  was 
not   Nicon's   way.      He   is   grand   when   showing    fearless 
independence  in  opposition  to  a  mob,  and  strong  and  bold 

^  'iTjtrovs.  In  the  Latin  benediction  the  thumb  and  the  first  two  fingers 
are  held  upright,  while  the  third  and  fourth  Hngers  are  bent. 

*  One  of  the  most  important  Sc^lavonic  MSS.  of  the  Gospels  is  the  Ostromir 
Codex  written  by  Gregory,  a  deacon  of  Novgorod,  and  dating  from  the  year 
1056-57.  The  earliest  dated  complete  Sclavonic  MS.  of  the  Gospels  now 
known  is  assigned  to  tlie  year  1144,  and  the  earliest  MS.  of  the  whole  Bible 
to  the  year  1499.  The  first  piinted  edition  is  tlie  famous  Ostrog  Bible 
of  A.i).  1581.  See  Scrivener,  Criliclsm  of  the  N.T.,  4th  edit,  (edited  by  P. 
Miller),  vol.  ii.  pp.  158-161. 


THE    PATRIARCHATE  417 

in  carrying  out  his  purging  of  the  Church  against  all 
opposition ;  but  the  temperament  which  favours  such 
virile  virtues  is  not  so  ready  to  cultivate  the  graces  of 
tolerance  and  gentleness,  and  Nicon  was  a  stern  ecclesiastic. 
Even  his  admirer  Mouravieff  admits  that  his  "  ardent  zeal 
for  eradicating  all  that  was  evil  in  the  Church  carried  him 
beyond  the  bounds  which  pastoral  long-suffering  might 
have  observed."  ^ 

The  tirst  revised  work  to  be  printed  was  the  Slonjebuik 
or  service  book,  which  was  followed  by  the  Shreejdl  ("  The 
Table  "),  a  patristic  catena  of  doctrines.  The  revision  was 
not  left  to  make  its  way  on  its  merits.  The  old  MSS.  of 
the  corrupt  text  were  violently  taken  from  the  monasteries, 
where  they  had  been  used  for  years,  and  the  revised 
versions  forcibly  substituted.  Naturally  such  high-handed 
acts  roused  fierce  resentment  among  the  ignorant,  conserva- 
tive monks.  The  result  was  a  schism  which  issued  in 
the  large  sect  of  the  Staro-Ohriadtsi,  or  BasJcolniks,  who 
have  suffered  much  persecution  for  their  adhesion  to  the 
old  books. 

But  while  Nicon  was  severe  in  the  discipline  of  the 
Church,  he  showed  a  large-minded  tactfulness  in  dealing 
with  foreign  affairs.  During  his  patriarchate  Little  Kussia 
was  united  with  the  Church  and  empire  after  a  war  with  the 
Poles.  The  movement  from  within  was  led  by  Kmeltnitsky, 
the  "  Hetman,"  who  asked  the  army  whether  they  would 
belong  "  to  the  unbelieving  khan  (the  sultan),  to  the  Latin 
king,  or  to  the  orthodox  tsar  ? "  He  saw  and  he  made  the 
men  see  that  independence  was  impossible.  Faced  by  this 
dilemma,  they  shouted,  "  We  wish  to  be  under  the  orthodox 
tsar." 

It  was  more  difficult  to  secure  ecclesiastical  submission. 
The  metropolitan  of  Kiev  and  the  archimandrite  of  the 
Pechersky  Monastery  had  no  inclination  to  exchange  a 
merely  nominal  subordination  to  Constantinople  for  a  very 
i-eal  submission  to  Moscow  with  its  masterful  prelate. 
But  N icon's  flattering  reception  of  the  delegates  from 
1  Ristory,  p.  206. 
27 


418  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

these  two  ecclesiastics  and  the  presents  he  sent  back  with 
them  molified  their  resentment  against  the  policy  of  the 
government ;  and  although  the  union  was  not  actually- 
effected  at  once,  it  came  about  some  thirty  years  later. 
Thus  at  last,  after  centuries  of  alienation,  Kiev,  the  vener- 
able parent  city  of  Christianity  in  Eussia,  was  reunited  to 
the  national  Church  to  which  it  had  given  birth.  This 
happy  result,  springing  from  the  diplomatic  skill  of  Nicon, 
delighted  the  tsar.  In  another  way  he  greatly  pleased 
Alexis.  When  Moscow  was  devastated  by  the  plague, 
the  patriarch  bestirred  himself  to  improve  the  sanitation 
of  the  place,  and  took  personal  care  of  the  royal  family. 
For  these  services  the  tsar  bestowed  on  him  the  title  of 
"  Great  Lord." 

Meanwhile  Nicon's  severity  of  discipline  increased  his 
unpopularity  among  the  clergy.  He  punished  intemperate 
popes  with  flogging  and  imprisonment — customary  modes 
of  chastisement  at  the  time;  and  he  insisted  on  some 
degree  of  education  in  candidates  for  ordination,  the 
minimum  being  ability  to  read  and  write.  Then  the 
boyars'  jealousy  led  to  plots  and  intrigues,  which  produced 
such  an  intolerable  situation,  that  Nicon,  being  on  one 
occasion  reproached  for  his  pride  by  one  of  the  princes, 
broke  out  into  a  rage,  declared  that  he  was  no  longer 
patriarch,  and  tore  off  his  episcopal  robes.  Dressed  in  the 
simple  garments  of  a  monk,  he  retired  to  the  Krestnoy 
Monastery,  near  the  White  Sea.  He  now  became  gloomy 
and  bitter  in  spirit,  anathematising  one  after  another  of  his 
enemies.  A  little  later,  on  the  invitation  of  one  of  the 
boyars  who  was  friendly  to  him,  he  made  a  secret  journey 
to  Moscow,  suddenly  presented  himself  in  the  Church  of 
the  Assumption,  resumed  the  patriarch's  robe  and  staff  of 
oflfice,  and  conducted  the  liturgy.  Here  was  a  dramatic 
surprise  for  prince  and  people.  The  boyars  persuaded  the 
mild  Alexis,  who  was  powerless  in  their  hands,  not  to 
receive  his  old  friend  in  his  ])alace.  The  situation  became 
intolerable,  and  a  council  was  summoned  to  deal  with  it. 
This  was  tlie  must  uuposing  Church  council  ever  held  in 


THE   PATRIARCHATE  410 

Eussia.  The  patriarchs  of  Antioch  and  Alexandria  were 
there  as  well  as  Russian  metropolitans  and  bishops.  Nicon 
came  in  his  patriarchal  robes.  At  the  sight  of  the  great  man 
summoned  as  a  defendant,  Alexis  burst  into  tears.  But 
the  tsar  was  impotent  to  save  his  old  friend.  A  variety  of 
charges  were  brought  against  him,  consisting  in  the  main  of 
accusations  of  arbitrary,  tyrannical  dealings  with  the  Churcli, 
on  the  ground  of  which  he  was  formally  deposed,  stripped 
of  his  robes,  and  sent  as  a  prisoner  to  a  monastery  at 
Bielo-ozero. 

Nicon  lived  to  see  the  end  of  the  patriarchate  and  the 
establishment  of  the  Holy  Synod  under  Peter  the  Great. 
He  may  have  owed  his  fall  from  power  in  a  measure  to  his 
own  harshness ;  but  he  had  been  a  great  ecclesiastic  and 
a  great  statesman,  correcting  abuses  in  the  Church  and 
helping  to  establish  the  unity  and  power  of  the  nation. 
He  has  been  called  the  Russian  Thomas  k  Becket,-^  a  com- 
parison that  does  not  do  justice  to  his  merits. 

*  Leroy  Beaulieu,  The  Uvipire  of  the  Tsars,  part  iii.  p.  154. 


CHAPTER  V 

PETER  THE  GREAT  AND  THE  HOLY  SYNOD 

Morfill  ;  RamLaud  ;  Leroy  Beaulieu  ;  Nicolas  Polevoy,  History  of 
Peter  the  Great  ;  Torudin,  The  Roman  Pope  and  the  Eastern  Poises  ; 
Schuler,  Peter  the  Great,  Emperor  of  Russia,  New  York,  1884  ; 
Merejkowski,  Peter  and  Alexis  (a  well-informed  historical 
novel). 

Alexis  died  in  the  year  1676  at  the  age  of  forty-seven, 
and  was  succeeded  by  his  eldest  son  Feodor,  a  young  man  of 
weak  health,  who  reigned  without  distinction  for  six  years, 
and  died  without  an  heir.  Sophia,  the  daughter  of  Alexis, 
a  handsome,  clever  woman,  then  contrived  to  have  herself 
proclaimed  regent  for  her  imbecile  brother  Ivan  and  her 
young  half-brother  Peter,  a  child  of  Alexis  by  a  second 
wife,  born  in  the  year  1672,  and  therefore  four  years  of 
age  when  his  father  died.  Peter  was  an  intelligent,  keenly 
observant  child.  But  by  the  cruel  policy  of  Sophia  and 
the  able  but  unpopular  minister  Basil  Golitsin,  who  was  as 
her  right  hand,  his  education  was  deliberately  neglected. 
The  object  of  this  cruel  injustice  was  to  keep  him  per- 
manently unfit  to  administer  the  government  of  the  State, 
so  that  they  might  continue  to  share  it  between  them.  It 
was  a  diabolically  subtle  policy.  But  it  failed  utterly.  At 
the  age  of  seventeen  Peter  seized  the  reins  and  sent  his 
unnatural  sister  off  to  a  convent,  where  she  died  after 
seventeen  years'  imprisonment.  Much  of  the  brutality  and 
coarseness  of  the  great  tsar's  sulxsequent  conduct  must  be 
set  down  to  the  account  of  his  deliberately  neglected 
youth.  His  life-story  would  have  been  very  different  in 
mauy  respects   if  it  had  not   been   for  the  iniquitous  dis- 

420 


PETER    THE    GREAT    AND    THE    HOLY    SYNOD       421 

advantages  with  wliich  he  set  out.  If  it  is  a  crime  to  steal 
the  l)read  from  a  child's  month,  it  is  scarcely  less  a  crime 
to  deprive  him  of  the  education  that  is  his  natural  right ; 
and  this  is  the  charge  that  must  be  laid  to  the  account  of 
the  ambitious  regent  and  her  unscrupulous  minister. 

With  the  commencement  of  the  reign  of  Peter  the  Great 
we  enter  on  the  modern  history  of  Eussia.  The  events 
noticed  in  the  immediately  preceding  chapters  will  have 
disproved  the  popular  notion  that  Eussia  was  ever  entirely 
isolated  and  dissevered  from  the  comity  of  European 
nations,  excepting  during  the  dismal  three  centuries  of  the 
Mongol  possession.  Previous  to  that  time  she  had  been 
in  close  contact  with  Constantinople.  Both  in  Church 
and  in  State  at  the  great  centres  of  Kiev  and  Novgorod 
Eussian  civilisation  had  been  in  line  with  the  civilisation 
of  Eastern  Europe.  In  some  respects  it  was  even  more 
advanced  than  that  of  Western  Europe  at  the  break-up  of 
the  Eoman  Empire  and  during  the  wars  of  the  barons.  The 
Mongol  invasion  had  swept  much  of  this  culture  away, 
checked  the  course  of  national  development,  shut  off  the 
Sffelavonic  population  from  Greek  and  Teutonic  Europe,  and 
turned  Eussia  into  a  semi-Asiatic  country.  It  took  many 
generations  for  her  people  to  recover  from  so  huge  and 
crushing  a  calamity.  The  vastness  of  the  territory  of 
Eussia,  the  thinness  of  its  widely  scattered  populations,  and 
the  remoteness  of  most  of  them  from  the  centres  of 
enlightenment,  have  always  resulted  and  must  still  result  in 
great  differences  in  the  social  conditions  of  the  people. 
Necessarily  the  mass  of  the  outlying  peasants  are  only 
indirectly  affected,  if  at  all  influenced,  by  the  advance  of 
culture  in  the  towns.  Eeligiously  as  well  as  socially,  most 
of  Eussia  is  still  in  the  Middle  Ages,  that  is  to  say,  in  the 
period  before  the  Eenaissance. 

But  in  Moscow,  Eostoff,  Novgorod,  and  other  great 
towns  there  was  a  consciousness  of  the  larger  world  long 
before  Peter  came  on  the  scene.  Ivan  the  Terrible 
took  decided  steps  towards  bringing  Western  culture  into 
Eussia.      The  Eoman  off  dynasty  followed  on  similar  lines. 


422  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

The  gentle  Alexis  was  anxious  to  import  education  and 
enlightened  manners  into  his  empire.  Still,  when  all 
that  was  done  in  this  way  has  received  due  recognition, 
it  remains  true  that  Peter  the  Great  achieved  the  huge 
twofold  task  of  restoring  Eussia  to  Europe  and  introducing 
Europe  to  Eussia.  His  clear  ideas  and  his  vigorous  pursuit 
of  them  went  far  beyond  anything  accomplished  or  even  at- 
tempted or  conceived  by  his  predecessors  in  these  directions. 
He  aimed  at  modernising  Eussia  by  bringing  her  into 
contact  with  the  progressive  nations  of  the  West,  and  in  a 
considerable  degree  he  succeeded,  though  by  no  means  to 
the  extent  that  external  appearances  would  suggest.  We 
might  compare  Eussia  in  the  time  of  Peter  with  Japan  in 
our  own  day.  In  both  cases  we  have  a  long-stagnant 
people  suddenly  stirred  and  roused  by  a  rush  of  life  from 
the  progressive  West.  But  the  immediate  effect  is  much 
greater  in  Japan  than  it  was  in  Eussia.  Whether  the 
permanent  results  will  be  equally  to  the  advantage  of  the 
yellow  race  remains  to  be  seen. 

Peter  was  always  fond  of  mechanical  contrivances,  and 
it  was  quite  congenial  to  him  to  work  side  by  side  with 
the  artisans  in  the  dockyard  at  Deptford  when  he  came 
over  to  England  to  learn  shipbuilding.  Neither  his  educa- 
tion nor  his  manners  were  beyond  the  standard  of  an 
English  working-man  of  his  day.  But  he  had  a  great 
intellect  and  an  indomitable  will,  and  it  was  much  to 
him  that  neither  were  warped  or  prejudiced  by  the  con- 
ventions of  the  schools.  Even  more  than  Napoleon,  Peter, 
though  the  son  of  an  emperor,  was  really  a  self-made  man. 
His  European  travels  and  the  mechanical  labour  that  so 
scandalised  his  courtiers  had  their  place  in  his  deliberate 
policy.  Peter  visited  dockyards  to  learn  shipbuilding, 
because  he  saw  that  Eussia  needed  a  navy  if  she  was  to 
hold  her  own  on  the  Baltic.  For  the  same  reason  he 
founded  his  new  capital  close  to  this  sea  (a.d.  1703).  But 
he  had  greater  ideas  and  wider  projects  than  those  of  naval 
defence  or  offence.  Moscow  was  buried  deep  in  the  heart 
of  Eussia.      Before  the  age  of  railways  this  metropolis  was 


PETER    THE   GREAT    AND    THE    HOLY   SYNOD       423 

quite  out  of  touch  with  foreign  countries.  Now  it  was  the 
design  of  Peter  the  Great  to  bring  his  country  into  vital 
contact  with  the  rest  of  Europe.  The  founding  of 
St.  Petersburg  was  one  important  step  in  this  direction. 
With  herculean  energy  he  did  all  that  one  man  could  do 
by  his  own  action  to  introduce  the  ideas  and  arts  of  the 
advancing  nations  to  his  benighted  subjects.  Many 
influences  from  the  West  flowed  into  Kussia  when  Peter 
opened  the  door.  Englishmen  and  Germans  especially 
came  in  great  numbers,  spreading  commerce  and  scientific 
education  among  the  people  of  the  towns. 

These  novelties  were  not  brought  about  without  opposi- 
tion. While  Peter  was  on  his  travels  he  heard  of  a 
dangerous  revolt  of  the  Streltsi,  the  choicest  imperial 
troops,  the  Ptussian  "  prsetorian  guard."  The  tsar  hurried 
back,  suppressed  the  insurrection,  and  punished  the  rebels 
with  savage  cruelty.  The  old  Nationalist  party  called 
Peter  "  the  foreign  tsar,"  and  his  followers  "  the  Germans." 
Nevertheless  he  did  not  swerve  from  his  purpose.  He  was 
convinced  that  this  was  for  the  good  of  his  people.  Paternal 
government  is  of  the  essence  of  tsardom,  and  since  Peter 
was  by  far  the  ablest  man  in  the  country,  head  and 
shoulders  above  his  people,  he  felt  justified  in  treating 
them  as  children.  So  we  have  the  paradox  of  an  uneducated 
man  spreading  new  ideas  and  laying  the  foundations  of 
civilisation  and  culture  in  a  great  nation.  In  all  this 
Peter  was  thoroughly  patriotic.  There  was  no  ground  for 
any  suspicion  like  that  which  sprang  up  in  England  when 
Queen  Mary  wished  to  introduce  Philip's  Spaniards  to  high 
places  in  the  Church.  The  English,  the  Germans,  the 
Dutch  might  come  as  teachers  and  traders  to  bring  know- 
ledge and  wealth  to  Eussia ;  but  none  of  them  were 
appointed  to  posts  of  honour.  Peter's  ministers  and 
officials  in  high  positions  were  all  born  Eussians. 

The  great  tsar  thoroughly  reorganised  his  empire  in 
military,  social,  and  religious  affairs.  He  dissolved  the 
mutinous  Streltsi,  and  raised  a  regular  army  of  over  200,000 
men.      Thus  he  strengthened  the  autocracy  by  increasing 


424  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

its  military  power.  This  had  an  influence  on  all  depart- 
iiioiits  of  State.  Peter's  idea  was  the  establishment  of  an 
elaborate,  unified  organisation.  Everybody  was  to  serve 
the  State — some  in  the  army,  others  in  the  Church,  the 
rest  by  payment  of  taxes.  He  introduced  important 
changes  into  the  social  order.  No  doubt  these  were  not 
all  improvements.  In  place  of  the  old  custom  of  equal 
inheritance,  Peter  initiated  the  German  law  of  primogeniture ; 
and  the  peasants  lost  power  and  rights  by  becoming  parts 
of  a  great  territorial  system.  But  in  one  important  matter 
Peter  brought  about  a  great  reform.  This  was  in  the 
emancipation  of  woman.  Hitherto  the  women  of  Eussia 
had  been  kept  in  Oriental  seclusion  and  subjection,  partly 
owing  to  old  Byzantine  influences,  partly  also  owing  to  the 
effect  of  the  long  Mongolian  dominance.  The  tsar  had 
seen  the  very  different  position  of  woman  in  the  West,  and 
he  aimed  at  giving  similar  freedom  and  similar  rights  to 
the  women  of  his  empire.  He  ordered  that  betrothal 
should  take  place  six  weeks  before  marriage,  with  a  right 
to  break  the  contract  during  the  interval.  Parents  and 
guardians  were  compelled  to  swear  that  they  were  not 
making  their  young  people  marry  against  their  will,  and 
masters  to  do  the  same  in  the  marriage  of  their  slaves. 
Midwives  were  forbidden  to  make  away  with  illegitimate 
children.  Then  there  were  reforms  in  other  directions. 
Thus  the  praviozli,  or  public  flogging  of  debtors,  was 
stopped.  Peter  allowed  domestic  serfs  to  enter  the  army 
even  without  the  consent  of  their  masters,  and  he  permitted 
those  who  had  gained  some  money  by  trade  to  enrol 
themselves  as  citizens  of  the  towns  where  they  lived 
— also  without  their  masters'  consent.  He  ordered  the 
Senate  to  prohibit  the  sale  of  peasants  apart  from  the 
land.^ 

(^^ne   of  Peter's  changes  brought  Russia  into  line  with 

the    rest   of  Europe  in  a  very   significant  way.      The  old 

llussiau  calendar  had  been  dated  from  "  the  creation  of  the 

world,"  and  the  old  Russian  year  had  begun  in  September. 

1  Morlill,  p.  343. 


PETER   THE    GREAT    AND    THE    HOLY    SYNOD       425 

Peter  reckoned  by  tlie  Christian  era;  the  year  was  to 
begin  in  January,  as  with  us.^ 

But  some  of  Peter's  imitations  of  the  West  were 
beyond  the  manners  of  his  people.  He  introduced  the 
"  assembly,"  in  which  European  costume  was  to  be  worn  ; 
but  it  was  "  only  a  parody  of  Versailles."  ^  Visitors  from 
the  West  observed  that  men  smoked  in  the  presence  of 
ladies,  and  that  frequently  noble  cavaliers  had  to  be  taken 
out  drunk. 

Peter  also  introduced  reforms  into  the  government  of 
the  Church.  The  most  important  of  these  innovations  was 
the  substitution  of  the  Holy  Synod  for  the  patriarchate. 
The  patriarch  Adrien,  who  had  shown  little  sympathy  with 
the  new  ideas  imported  from  the  West,  died  in  the  year 
1700.  Peter  did  not  appoint  any  successor.  He  con- 
ferred on  Stephen  Javorski  the  title  of  "  custodian  of  the 
patriarchal  throne,"  while  he  was  arranging  for  a  new  form 
of  ecclesiastical  government. 

Later  on  he  organised  the  Holy  Synod  ^  for  the 
supreme  government  of  the  Eussian  Church.  The  synod 
takes  the  place  of  the  patriarch.  It  consists  of  bishops 
and  priests  nominated  by  the  tsar  and  presided  over  by  a 
State  official,  called  the  "  High  Procurator,"  a  layman,  whom 
Peter  preferred  to  be  a  military  officer,  representing  the 
tsar.  The  procurator  is  popularly  known  as  "  the  eye  of 
the  tsar."  Formerly  the  inferior  clergy  were  in  a  majority  ; 
but  now  they  are  outnumbered  by  the  bishops.  The  synod 
sits  at  St.  Petersburg ;  it  has  delegates  in  Moscow  and 
elsewhere.  It  is  sometimes  said  that  the  tsar  is  the  head 
of  the  Eussian  Church.  This  is  true  enough  in  fact,  for 
the  autocracy  comprehends  the  Church  as  well  as  the 
State.  But  it  is  not  allowed  in  theory,  nor  is  it  recog- 
nised in   the   forms  of  ecclesiastical   order.      The   Oriental 


'  Tliis  must  not  he  confoimded  with  the  question  of  "  Okl  Style."  The 
"Old  Style"  (i.e.  the  Julian  year)  still  continued  uncorrected  in  Russia, 
and  is  now  twelve  days  behind  the  corrected  year  of  Europe. 

^  Kanibaud,  p.  386. 

8  Its  full  title  is  "The  Most  Holy  Governing  Synod." 


426  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Church  protests  against  the  Eoman  papacy ;  it  cannot  set 
up  a  papacy  of  its  own,  which  in  one  respect  would  be 
even  more  scandalous,  since  the  pope  is  a  bishop,  but  the 
tsar  a  layman.  The  Eussian  Church  is  not  built  on  the 
theory  invented  by  Henry  viii.,  and  thoroughly  lived  up 
to  by  the  imperious  Elizabeth — that  the  king  is  the  real 
liead  of  the  Church  and  as  such  master  of  the  bishops. 
It  agrees  with  thoroughgoing  Protestantism  in  maintain- 
ing that  only  Christ  is  the  Head  of  the  Church,  and  it 
does  not  allow  that  He  has  any  earthly  vicar.  Under 
Christ  the  synod  is  supposed  to  rule  independently.  This 
is  the  decent  fiction. 

The  establishment  of  the  Holy  Synod  was  justified  by 
Peter  on  the  precedent  of  the  ancient  Church  councils.  He 
maintained  that  he  was  reverting  to  precedent  in  having 
his  Church  governed  by  a  council.  But  of  course  the 
mere  revival  of  archaeology  was  the  very  last  thing  the 
daring,  innovating  tsar  was  likely  to  promote.  Peter 
issued  an  ecclesiastical  code  which  was  wholly  utilitarian 
in  character.  He  rode  rough-shod  over  customs  and  pre- 
cedents that  did  not  favour  his  aims.  With  the  tsar 
theories  counted  for  nothing  ;  practical  considerations  were 
all  he  thought  of.  He  argued  that  government  by  a 
council  was  better  than  autocratic  authority,  because  it 
obviated  the  danger  of  tyranny — wilfully  blind  to  the 
application  of  the  same  principle  to  his  own  position  as 
autocrat.  But  he  could  not  endure  the  rivalry  of  a 
patriarch.  He  had  the  warning  example  of  Nicon  before 
his  eyes.  Peter  would  give  no  second  Nicon  his  chance.^ 
Therefore,  while  the  abolition  of  the  patriarch  was  ostensibly 
an  action  in  favour  of  liberty,  it  was  really  one  that  crippled 

^  In  his  preamble  to  the  order  establishing  the  synod,  Peter  says  :  "  The 
collegiate  organisation  would  not  bring  on  the  country  the  troubles  and 
seditions  which  could  survive  where  there  is  one  man  only  who  is  found 
at  the  head  of  the  Church.  .  .  .  The  people  would  not  see  the  differ- 
ence between  the  spiritual  and  the  temporal  powers.  .  .  .  Struck  with  the 
virtue  and  splendour  of  the  pastor  of  the  supreme  Church,  they  imagine 
that  he  is  a  second  sovereign,  equal  in  power  to  the  autocrat  and  even 
superior."     See  Rambaud,  p.  392. 


PETER    THE    GREAT    AND    THE    HOLY    SYNOD       427 

the  independence  of  the  Church  and  brought  it  into  sub- 
jection to  the  State.  The  masterful  tsar  would  not  allow  a 
Church  which  was  as  a  second  state  within  the  State; 
therefore  he  made  the  Church  a  department  of  his  State. 

Peter's  high-handed  dealings  with  the  Church  were  only 
submitted  to  by  his  bishops  with  bitter  resentment.  The 
new  system  was  endorsed  by  the  patriarchs  of  the  other 
parts  of  the  orthodox  Church.  But  we  must  not  forget 
that  these  dignitaries  were  in  the  miserable  condition  of 
subjects  of  the  Turkish  Empire  among  a  poverty-stricken 
people,  largely  dependent  on  the  bounty  of  the  tsar  for  the 
supply  of  their  necessities. 

Peter  accused  his  bishops  of  pride,  and  bade  them 
conduct  themselves  more  humbly.  He  ordered  them  to 
have  schools  in  which  the  children  of  the  popes  were  to 
be  educated.  Any  who  were  not  thus  educated  were  to 
be  drafted  into  the  army.  It  was  compulsory  education 
under  penalty  of  conscription.  The  sons  of  the  nobles 
were  also  to  attend  the  bishops'  schools.  The  tsar  was 
anxious  to  spread  popular  education;  he  had  schools 
established  for  this  purpose  in  every  province  of  his 
empire,  the  masters  of  which  were  furnished  from  his 
mathematical  school  at  St.  Petersburg.  He  also  estabhshed 
special  naval  and  engineering  colleges.  But  the  people 
were  not  ripe  for  these  improvements,  and  even  Peter's 
herculean  efforts  left  Eussia  as  a  whole  still  far  behind 
the  rest  of  Europe. 

Such  wholesale  innovations  forced  upon  a  conservative 
people  by  authority  could  not  but  arouse  opposition, 
which  would  look  for  an  opportunity  to  express  itself. 
The  priests  were  obstinate  opponents  of  the  whole  move- 
ment. No  doubt  Peter's  knowledge  that  they  would  take 
up  this  attitude  was  one  of  the  motives  leading  him  to 
suppress  the  patriarchate  and  bring  the  Church  more 
effectually  under  his  own  power.  But  that  in  turn 
provoked  resentment  and  led  to  counter-plots.  It  is  in 
the  light  of  this  condition  of  affairs  that  we  must  regard 
the  saddest  scene  in  the  life  of  the  tsar,  the  execution  of 


428  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

liis  son  Alexis.  This  iin]ia[)py  prince  had  incnrred  tlie 
displeasure  of  his  father  by  giving  way  to  dissolute  habits. 
Then  he  had  followed  the  not  uncommon  example  of  an 
heir-apparent,  and  sided  with  the  opposition.  He  had 
even  done  much  worse.  He  had  intrigued  with  Sweden 
against  his  father's  government,  though  as  he  believed  in 
the  true  interest  of  his  country.  In  his  opposition  to  the 
new  methods  of  government  he  was  aided  by  his  mother 
Eudoxia,  Peter's  first  wife,  whom  the  tsar  had  treated 
with  heartless  brutality  and  sent  to  a  convent.  She 
had  converted  the  convent  into  a  court,  where  she  wel- 
comed the  disaffected,  for  Eudoxia  was  the  patroness  of 
the  priests'  party.  Alexis  is  reported  to  have  said, 
"  I  will  whisper  a  word  to  the  bishops.  They  will  pass 
it  on  to  the  priests ;  who  will  repeat  it  to  the  people, 
and  everything  will  be  as  it  was  before."^ 

The  treason  was  intolerable  and  unpardonable. 
Eudoxia  was  sent  to  another  convent,  where  she  was  kept 
in  strict  confinement,  and  the  tsarevitch  was  tried,  con- 
demned, flogged,  and  executed — probably  by  the  knout. 
Peter  was  certainly  responsible  for  the  torture  and  death 
of  his  son  Alexis.  It  was  an  act  of  deliberate  policy.  As 
such  it  is  not  comparable  with  Ivan  the  Terrible's  dreadful 
deed  when  he  struck  his  son  dead  with  his  own  hand  in 
a  fit  of  mad  rage.  But  the  whole  story  is  a  mournful 
tragedy.  Weak  and  dissolute  as  he  was,  Alexis  was  led 
to  believe  that  his  father's  policy  was  ruinous  to  the  State 
and  impious  with  regard  to  the  Church.  On  the  other 
hand,  Peter  saw  in  his  son,  the  heir  to  his  throne,  a 
wretched  opponent  of  the  reforms  to  which  he  was 
devoting  his  titanic  energies.  The  great  tsar  believed  in 
those  reforms  with  all  his  heart  as  necessary  for  the 
well-being  of  his  country.  Then  how  could  he  permit 
them  to  be  thus  traitorously  checked  and  thwarted,  with 
the  certainty  that  when  he  died  they  would  all  be  swept 
away  ?  We  may  pity  Peter  as  much  as  we  pity  poor 
Alexia. 

*  Leioy  Beanlii'U,  iiait  iii.  p.  158. 


PETER   THE    GREAT    AND    THE   HOLY    SYNOD       429 

Peter  felt  the  monks  to  be  the  worst  enemies  of 
his  reforms,  and  he  saw  the  institution  of  monasticism 
to  be  socially  harmful  in  two  ways:  the  monasteries 
held  a  large  part  of  the  land  of  Eussia,  and  the  monks 
were  rich  in  the  midst  of  the  poverty  of  the  peasants. 
Eussia  was  suffering,  as  the  Eomau  Empire  had  suffered 
in  its  later  days,  by  the  withdrawal  of  so  many  able- 
bodied  men  from  the  service  of  their  country.  The  tsar 
did  not  venture  to  deal  directly  with  the  first  of  these 
evils.  He  did  not  dare  to  confiscate  Church  land.  But  he 
made  some  attempt  to  lessen  the  second  by  not  permitting 
anybody  to  become  a  monk  under  the  age  of  thirty.  Then 
he  crippled  the  power  of  the  monasteries  by  restricting 
their  literary  influence.  He  forbade  monks  to  have  ink 
or  pens  in  their  cells.  Men  were  not  to  shut  themselves 
up  to  write ;  they  were  to  work  at  trades.  On  the  other 
hand,  Peter  encouraged  the  literary  activity  of  bishops, 
and  in  his  reign  Dmitri  Touptalo,  the  metropolitan  of 
Eostoff,  re-edited  the  Menologium  (the  Lives  of  the  Saints) 
and  wrote  theological  works  of  his  own.  Other  writers 
of  less  account  also  flourished  in  the  hothouse  atmosphere 
of  an  exotic  culture  which  Peter  had  introduced  into 
Eussia. 

It  must  not  be  supposed  that  Peter's  masterfulness  led 
him  into  narrow  intolerance.  The  raison  d'etre  of  his 
policy  was  rationalistic  liberalism.  He  was  in  constant 
opposition  to  the  prevalent  inert  conservatism  of  Eussian 
life  and  religion.  Accordingly  we  may  be  prepared  to  see 
in  him  a  certain  amount  of  indifference  to  varieties  of 
religious  belief,  and  this  was  the  case.  He  did  not  inter- 
fere with  the  greater  part  of  the  sect  of  the  Easkolniks,^ 
who  lived  in  the  remote  forests.  He  would  protect  the 
peaceable  schismatics  from  popular  persecution.  "  God 
has  given  the  tsars  power  over  the  nations,"  he  said,  "  but 
Christ  alone  has  power  over  the  conscience  of  men."  ^ 
But  he  imposed  on  those  members  of  the  sect  who  lived 
at  Moscow  a  double  capitation  tax,  and  required  them  to 
1  See  pp.  441  if.  ^  Rambaud,  p.  394. 


430  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

wear  distinctive  clothing.  They  must  pay  for  the  liberty 
of  nonconformity ;  they  must  live  as  marked  men.  Peter 
did  not  disguise  his  opinion  that  their  position  was  an 
error,  and  he  treated  it  as  such.  He  prohibited  them 
from  propagating  their  views  with  threats  of  a  penalty. 
Attendance  at  church  every  Sunday  and  at  the  Easter 
communion  was  made  obligatory. 

The  tsar  protected  the  Capuchins  at  Astrakan,  because, 
as  Voltaire  remarked,  these  monks  were  of  no  consequence  ; 
but  in  the  year  1718  he  expelled  the  Jesuits  from  Kussia 
as  dangerous  politicians.  Although  he  was  particularly 
friendly  with  the  Dutch  and  the  English,  he  persecuted 
his  own  Protestants.  For  instance,  a  Russian  Protestant 
lady,  Natasia  Zima,  was  conducted  with  her  husband  and 
six  other  converts  to  "  the  terrible  chancelry  "  and  there 
cruelly  tortured.^ 

Peter  the  Great  died  in  the  year  1725  at  the  age  of  fifty- 
three.  He  had  compressed  an  enormous  amount  of  work 
into  his  comparatively  short  life.  He  found  Russia  remote 
from  the  world's  progress,  sunk  in  mediaeval  barbarism, 
more  Oriental  than  Western  in  life  and  manners.  Solely 
owing  to  his  own  energy,  against  the  wishes  and  feelings 
of  most  of  his  people,  before  his  death  he  had  the  satis- 
faction of  seeing  his  country  in  vital  relations  with  the 
rest  of  Europe  and  on  the  road  to  progress.  His  schools 
and  colleges,  libraries  and  museums,  galleries  of  painting 
and  sculpture,  only  touched  the  few ;  his  canals  and  his 
ships  brought  fresh  life  and  new  energy  to  a  larger 
number  of  his  subjects.  Peter  cared  nothing  for  pomp 
and  state,  had  no  personal  dignity,  no  manners.  He  was 
tyrannous,  cruel,  coarse,  gluttonous.  His  practical  jokes 
were  those  of  a  rude  schoolboy.  On  the  other  hand,  his 
scorn  of  old-fashioned  proprieties  had  its  good  points. 
Quite  indifferent  to  the  opinion  of  the  orthodox,  he  would 
freely  visit  heretics  and  stand  godfather  to  their  children. 
Perhaps  his  chief  claim  to  honour,  next  to  the  throwing 
open  of  his  country  to  Europe,  is  his  zeal  for  education. 

^  Rambaud,  p.  394. 


PETER   THE   GREAT    AND    THE    HOLY    SYNOD       431 

This  is  seen    especially   in   ecclesiastical   matters.     Peter 
aimed   at   giving    some    culture    to    the    grossly    ignorant 
parish  clergy.      But  his  autocratic  dealings  with  the  Church 
paralysed  its  energy.       From  this  time  onwards  there  is 
little  to  chronicle  in  Russian  ecclesiastical    affairs.       The 
sects  will  become  active  and  interesting,  but  the  orthodox 
Church  ever  more  and  more  somnolent.       "The  Church," 
writes  M.  Leroy  Beaulieu,  "  has  come  to  be  considered  a 
sort  of  adjunct  to  the  police,  and  the  religious  practices 
as   police    regulations."  ^       Therefore    in    thinking   of   the 
Church  in  Russia  as  it  has  settled  down  subsequently  to 
the  establishment  of  the  Holy  Synod  by  Peter  the  Great, 
with  the  virtual  absorption  of  its  official  life  into  that  of 
the  bureaucracy,  we  must  entirely  dismiss  from  our  minds 
the  ideas  of  the  relations  of    pastor  and  people  seen  in 
England    and   America,   or   that  of    the    French    cure  or 
the    Irish    priest    and    his    flock.       The    village    pope    is 
miserably  poor,  and  he  has  to  maintain  a  bare  livelihood 
by  taking    his  dues    from    the    peasants,   who  resent   his 
visits  as  the  calls  of  a  tax-gatherer.     They  do  not  look 
up  to  him  as  a  religious  leader.      He  is  a  functionary  who 
has  to  perform  certain  rites.     He  rarely  preaches,  and  he 
must  never  do  so  until  he  has  submitted  his  sermon  to  the 
judgment  of  an  ecclesiastical  superior.      Nobody  expects 
him  to  be  a  model   of    higher    living  than  is   customary 
among  his   neighbours.       We   have   seen   that   while    the 
bishops  are  celibates  and  are  found  in  the  monasteries,  the 
parish  priests  or  popes  must  be  married  men.     A  priest 
must    marry    before    he    can   be  ordained.       If    his    wife 
dies   he   may   not   marry  again.     But   neither   should   he 
continue  in  office  as   a   widower.      He    should    resign    at 
once,  and  retire  to  a  monastery.     Recently,  however,  this 
requirement   has    been  relaxed,  and  there  are   now  some 
widowed   priests  in   Russia.      As   a   rule,  it   appears,   his 
bishop  finds  a  wife  for  the  young  postulant  of  priesthood. 
This    curious    custom    has     sprung    out    of    the    bishop's 
responsibility    for    his    priests    and    their    families.       The 
^  The  Empire  of  the  Tsars,  part  iii.  p.  139. 


432  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

salary  of  a  village  pope  allows  him  no  means  for  saving. 
But  when  he  dies  his  wife  and  family  are  not  to  be  left 
destitute,  and  the  bishop  has  them  on  his  hands.  The 
easiest  way  to  provide  for  them  is  to  pass  them  on  to 
the  deceased  man's  successor  by  giving  him  one  of  the 
daughters  for  his  wife.^  The  result  is  that  the  priests 
have  become  a  caste.  The  office  is  hereditary  in  a  sort  of 
Levitical  tribe.  The  position  of  a  country  pope  is  very 
anomalous  and  most  unsatisfactory.  He  feels  himself 
above  the  peasants,  and  his  wife  affects  the  dress  of 
Western  Europe ;  but  he  is  not  received  into  society,  and 
in  this  respect  he  is  very  differently  situated  from  the 
English  clergyman.  "I  know  he  gets  drunk  once  in  a 
while,"  said  a  peasant  of  his  pope,  "but  he  is  a  good 
Christian,  and  he  is  never  drunk  on  Saturday  night  or 
Sunday  morning."  ^ 

It  must  be  allowed  that  not  only  is  the  orthodox 
Church  in  Kussia  intellectually  inert ;  it  is  a  hindrance 
rather  than  a  help  to  the  national  development.  Its 
functions  are  ceremonial,  not  spiritual.  The  people  attend 
the  liturgy  as  by  law  required ;  but  they  do  not  under- 
stand the  old  Sclavonic  dialect  of  the  service  books. 
There  is  no  idea  in  the  Eussian  Church  corresponding  to 
that  of  the  Koman  Church  where  the  priest  says  mass 
regardless  of  the  attendance  of  the  laity.  The  liturgy  is 
supposed  to  be  congregational ;  the  laity  must  be  present. 
Yet  the  people  who  stand  through  the  weary  hours  of  the 
lengthy  ritual  do  not  know  the  meaning  of  the  words 
chanted  in  their  hearing.  This  is  a  result  of  the  pedantry 
of  archaism  that  has  fossilised  the  Church,  for  the  Greek 
liturgies  of  St.  Basil  and  St.  Chrysostom  were  originally 
translated  into  Sclavonic  for  the  express  purpose  of  being 
understood  by  the  congregations  who  took  part  in  them. 
With  the  ignorant  peasant,  bowing  to  icons  is  the  chief 
religious  performance.  Icons  are  in  every  house,  in  every 
room  of  every  house.      On  entering  a  room  a  Russian  looks 

1  See  Wallace,  Russia  (new  and  enlarged  edit. ),  vol.  i.  pp.  64-89. 
*  Leroy  Beaulieu,  part  iii.  p.  2i6. 


PETER    THE   GREAT    AND    THE    HOLY    SYNOD       433 

at  the  icon  hung  in  the  corner  facing  him,  and  bows  to  it. 
That  is  his  primary  rehgious  duty. 

As  in  Ireland,  commercial  and  educational  progress  is 
liindered  in  Eussia  by  the  multitude  of  saints'  days.  The 
dies  nefas,  when  work  is  tabooed,  becomes  a  serious  handica]> 
in  the  race  of  modern  life.  These  saints'  days  together 
with  the  Sundays  rob  the  Eussian  of  nearly  one-third  of 
his  time,  for  they  leave  him  only  about  250  days  for 
work.  He  would  sooner  work  on  a  Sunday  than  on  a 
saint's  day. 

Pilgrimages  assume  enormous  proportions  in  the  Church 
life  of  Eussia.  Kiev  is  now  the  chief  centre  of  pilgrimages 
in  the  world.  It  has  been  calculated  that  in  the  year 
1886  at  least  a  million  pilgrims,  each  contributing  a  candle 
and  a  coin,  visited  this  city,  the  shrine  of  primitive  Eussian 
Christianity.^  Sometimes  the  atmosphere  in  a  church 
becomes  positively  stifling,  and  the  people  are  nearly  choked 
by  the  fumes  of  the  pilgrims'  innumerable  candles.  Eelics 
and  miracle-working  icons  are  the  special  objects  visited 
in  these  huge  pilgrimages.  In  many  convents  the  monks' 
occupation  seems  to  consist  simply  in  keeping  relics  and 
icons  and  collecting  alms.^ 

"  Leroy  Beaulieii,  part  iii.  p.  212.  *  Ibid.  p.  216- 


aS 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  ORTHODOX  CHURCH  IN  MODERN  RUSSIA 

Morfill ;  Rambaud  ;  Leroy  Beaulieu  ;  Heard,  The  Russian  Church 
and  Russian  Dissent,  1887  ;  Wallace,  Russia,  new  edit.,  1905, 
vol.  i.  ;  Cambridge  Modern  History,  vol.  x.,  chap.  xiii.  For 
Catherine  ii.,  Me'moires  of  Princess  Dashkoff,  published  by  Mrs.  W. 
Bradford,  1840  ;  and  for  Alexander  i.,  M^moires  du  Prince  Adam 
Czartoryski,  et  sa  Correspondence  avec  I'Empereur  Alexander  I., 
dating  from  1795 ;  Sutherland  Edwards,  The  Romanoffs,  189C ; 
Bain,  Pupils  of  Peter  the  Great,  1897. 

After  the  death  of  Peter  the  Great  (a.d.  1725)  Eussia  was 
disturbed  by  contending  factious.  The  great  tsar's  widow 
Catherine  succeeded  to  the  throne,  but  only  survived  him 
for  two  years.  Peter,  the  son  of  the  ill-fated  Alexis, 
followed,  and  soon  died.  Next  came  the  uneventful  reign 
of  Anne,  who  died  in  the  year  1740.  A  series  of  changes 
in  the  government  now  rapidly  supervened,  till  Elizabeth, 
the  only  surviving  cliild  of  Peter  the  Great,  was  seated  on 
the  throne.  Her  father  had  introduced  civilians  into  the 
body  that  managed  the  Church  estates.  Elizabeth  reverted 
to  the  old  custom  and  gave  these  estates  back  entirely  into 
the  hands  of  ecclesiastics.  It  was  a  time  of  reaction  in 
favour  of  the  Church.  The  empress  showed  herself  very 
energetic  in  church-building,  the  promotion  of  pilgrimages, 
and  the  persecution  of  dissenters. 

Peter  iii.,  Elizabeth's  nephew  and  successor,  meditated 
a  great  measure  of  reform.  This  was  nothing  less  than 
the  appropriation  of  the  Church  lands.  He  was  not 
strong  enough  to  carry  out  so  stupendous  an  enterprise. 
But  this  task  was  accomplished  by  his  consort  and  suc- 
cessor, Catherine  ii.  (a.d.    1762—1796).     She  was  an  able 


THE  ORTHODOX  CHURCH  IN  MODERN  RUSSIA  435 

sovereign,  of  German  birth  and  education,  and  therefore 
more  enlightened  than  her  predecessors,  but  of  scandalous 
morals,  who  ousted  her  feeble  husband  and  usurped  his 
authority.  Although  Peter  the  Great  acquired  large  practical 
knowledge  in  the  West  and  set  a  high  value  on  European 
science,  he  was  always  a  barbarian  at  heart,  and  he  mocked 
the  civilisation  he  mimicked.  But  Catherine,  also  deservedly 
called  "  the  Great,"  really  understood  it  and  endeavoured  to 
introduce  genuine  reforms  on  modern  lines.  The  specific 
reform  which  Peter  III.  dreamed  of  and  which  Catherine 
effected  was  urgently  needed.  The  Church  had  become  a 
parasite  on  the  State,  a  vampu-e  sucking  its  life-blood, 
showing  no  life  itself,  but  able  to  drain  the  life  of  the 
nation,  fattening  on  the  starvation  of  the  people.  An 
English  contemporary  writer  says  of  the  monasteries, 
"  They  have  wrought  that  if  any  part  of  the  realm  be 
better  and  sweeter  than  other,  there  staudeth  a  friary  or 
monastery  dedicated  to  some  saint."  ^  The  number  of  serfs 
belonging  to  the  monks  now  amounted  to  nearly  a  million. 
Catherine  appointed  a  mixed  lay  and  ecclesiastical  commis- 
sion to  arrange  the  transference  both  of  the  land  and  of  its 
human  property,  the  serfs.  The  one  became  crown  land, 
and  the  other,  remaining  still  in  slavery,  passed  over  to 
State  ownership.  In  return  it  was  ordered  that  a  fixed 
revenue  drawn  from  the  public  funds  should  be  paid  to  the 
archimandrites  for  the  support  of  their  monks.  Monasteries 
could  now  no  longer  acquire  land  without  the  sanction  of 
the  government.  With  the  loss  of  their  property  the 
monks  declined  in  independence  and  prestige.  They  also 
rapidly  declined  in  numbers,  although  the  number  of  the 
nuns  is  said  to  have  ])een  growing.  There  was  a  constant 
rivalry  between  the  black  clergy  (the  monks),  and  the 
white  clergy  (the  parish  popes),  the  black  clergy  trying  to 
exercise  authority  over  the  white,  who  in  turn  endeavoured 
to  evade  their  interference. 

Napoleon's  ill-fated  attack  on  Kussia  distracted  attention 
for  a  time  from  internal  affairs,  both  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
1  Quoted  by  Morfill,  p.  221. 


436  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

But  its  successful  repulse  with  immense  loss  to  the  invader 
and  his  final  overthrow  were  followed  by  a  corresponding 
expansion  and  strengthening  of  the  power  of  Eussia,  which 
may  be  said  to  have  been  now  at  her  zenith.  Alexander  I. 
(a.d,  1801-1825)  showed  himself  at  first  to  be  progressive 
and  reforming  in  several  directions.  During  his  reign, 
several  universities,  including  that  of  St.  Petersburg,  were 
founded.  But  the  administration  of  the  whole  empire  was 
rotten.  "  Everything  was  corrupt,  everything  unjust,  every- 
thing dishonest,"  writes  the  official  Eussian  historian  when 
describing  the  last  ten  years  of  Alexander's  reign.^  The 
tsar  now  became  distinctly  reactionary.  He  allowed  the 
censorship  of  the  press  to  be  made  more  rigid — a  sure  sign 
that  discontent  was  rising,  and  that  attempts  to  meet  its 
demands  were  slackening. 

At  this  time  there  were  110,000  white  clergy,  5,700 
black  clergy,  and  5,300  nuns;  27,000  churches,  including 
450  cathedrals  (sohors)  Sind  about  500  chapels,  377  monas- 
teries and  99  nunneries.  The  annual  expenditure  of  the 
Church  was  about  900,000  roubles.^  A  contest  now  arose 
between  the  Holy  Synod  and  the  government.  The  Church 
authority  was  desirous  of  making  itself  independent  of 
control  by  the  State.  In  this  movement  the  synod  was  led 
by  Seraphim,  archbishop  of  Tver,  afterwards  of  Moscow, 
and  later  of  St.  Petersburg,  where  he  became  also  president 
of  the  Holy  Synod.  He  was  a  narrow-minded  bigot,  but 
astute,  and  he  induced  an  excitable  young  ascetic,  the 
archimandrite  Photius,  religious  teacher  of  the  school  of 
cadets,  to  further  his  projects.  A  man  of  a  finer  type  was 
Philaret,  archbishop  of  Yaroslaff,  and  afterwards  of  Moscow, 
whom  Photius  denounced  as  a  "  freemason,"  and  whom 
Seraphim  accused  of  being  "  unorthodox  "  and  of  having 
"  Lutheran "  tendencies.  In  his  early  reforming  period 
Alexander  endeavoured  to  improve  the  wretched  condition 
of  the  white  clergy,  by  placing  them  on  a  fixed  salary  paid 
by  the  State,  and  raising  the  character  of  the  whole  body. 
It  was  with  the  tsar's  assistance  that  a  Bible  Society  was 
?  See  Cambridge  Modern  History,  vol.  x.  p.  420.  ^  /jj^^  p_  422. 


THE  ORTHODOX  CHURCH  IN  MODERN  RUSSIA  437 

formed  iu  Eussia  after  the  model  of  the  "  British  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society."  During  the  first  nine  years  of  its  existence 
this  society  printed  129  editions  of  the  Bible  and  as  many 
as  675,000  copies.  In  the  year  1817  Alexander  reorgan- 
ised the  synod  and  put  it  under  the  authority  of  the 
Minister  of  Education,  who,  according  to  the  terms  of  his 
appointment,  "  was  henceforth  to  occupy  the  same  leading 
position  with  respect  to  the  synod,  as  the  Minister  of  Justice 
with  respect  to  the  Senate."  The  tsar  manifested  some 
sympathy  with  mysticism ;  he  also  came  to  an  agreement 
with  the  pope  for  the  establishment  of  an  archbishopric  at 
Warsaw,  and  a  harmonious  arrangement  between  the  two 
Churches  in  that  city.  He  may  have  been  meditating  the 
age-long  question  of  the  "  union,"  so  dear  to  the  hearts  of 
suocessive  popes  of  Rome,  and  opening  at  times  so  promis- 
ing a  prospect  for  much-harassed  emperors.  But  this 
arrangement  was  nothing  so  ambitious.  The  two  religions 
existed  side  by  side  in  Poland.  It  was  well  that  they  should 
be  at  peace,  each  enjoying  its  rights  and  liberties. 

But  all  this  was  most  objectionable  to  the  Holy  Synod, 
for  it  seemed  to  threaten  the  foundations  of  the  authority 
of  the  hierarchy.  A  few  years  later  (a.d.  1822),  Seraphim, 
taking  the  lead  in  the  opposition,  used  Photius  as  his 
instrument  to  influence  the  tsar.  That  strange  personage, 
half -mediaeval  saint,  half -Jesuit  in  character,  so  completely 
won  over  Alexander  that  the  tsar  fell  at  his  feet,  kissed  his 
hands,  and  seemed  to  yield  entirely  to  his  hypnotic  influ- 
ence. Photius  made  the  best  of  his  opportunity,  denouncing 
Galitziu,  the  Minister  of  Education,  the  Catholics,  the 
Lutherans,  the  mystics,  the  secret  societies,  the  Bible 
Society — everything  that  made  for  freedom  of  tb ought,  as 
enemies  both  to  the  throne  and  to  the  Church.  Alexander 
wavered;  he  would  not  yield  at  once,  for  he  was  of  a 
suspicious  nature.  Two  years  passed,  and  then  Seraphim 
himself  denounced  Galitzin  to  the  tsar  as  the  enemy  of 
orthodoxy.  Alexander,  who  was  well  meaning,  but  dreamy 
and  vacillating,  still  resisted  for  a  time;  but  Seraphim 
was  firm  and  uncompromising,  and  he  had  supporters.      In 


438  THE   GREEK   AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

the  end  the  tsar  yielded.  Galitzin  was  dismissed,  and  was 
succeeded  by  a  reactionary,  Shishkoff ;  the  independence  of 
the  sacred  synod  was  restored ;  and  the  Bible  Society's 
activity  was  checked,  though  not  actually  suppressed  till 
after  Alexander's  death. 

Nicholas  i.  (1825-1855)  favoured  the  orthodox  Church 
and  the  reactionaries,  and  persecution  of  nonconformists 
was  now  revived.  Nevertheless  the  Uniats  once  again 
tried  to  bring  the  Russian  Church  into  the  Koman  com- 
nmnion.  This  most  recent  attempt  was  no  more  successful 
than  its  predecessors.  In  the  year  1839  the  Russian 
Uniat  bishops  met  at  Polosk,  and  issued  a  memorial  to  the 
tsar  expressing  their  willingness  to  return  to  the  orthodox 
fold.  The  consequence  was  that  a  million  and  a  half  Uniats 
were  forcibly  brought  into  the  Russian  Church  and  more 
than  2,000  churches  taken  over.  The  effect  of  this  act  of 
tyranny  on  Poland  was  most  disastrous.  Nicholas  I.  was 
a  stern  despot  who  drove  the  synod  with  a  tight  rein. 

Alexander  ii.  (1855— 1881)  is  deservedly  famous  for 
his  great  act  of  himaanity  in  the  emancipation  of  the  serfs. 
In  earlier  ages  the  country  people  had  consisted  of  three 
classes — independent  peasant  farmers,  free  hired  labourers 
who  could  move  at  will  from  place  to  place,  and  slaves.  But 
in  course  of  time  all  three  had  become  serfs,  and  the  serfs 
were  really  nothing  but  slaves.  Their  lot  was  much  worse 
than  that  of  the  villeins  of  feudalism  in  the  West.  In  Russia 
there  was  no  idea  of  mutual  obligations  subsisting  between 
the  lord  and  his  people,  no  family  bond.  Serfs  were  bought 
and  sold  like  cattle.  The  same  advertisement  would  offer 
cows  and  horses,  capable  working-men  and  handsome  young 
women  for  sale.  This  marketing  was  quite  regardless  of 
relationship.  A  family  might  be  broken  up  and  its  several 
members  sold  to  different  masters.^  The  serfs  were  flogged 
and  tortured  and  outraged  with  impimity.  When  extra- 
vagance and  bad  public  finance  were  bringing  many  of  the 
aristocracy  to  the  verge  of  ruin,  the  serfs  had  to  work 
the  harder.      This   slavery  of    white   men  and  women  in 

••  Wallace,  Russia,  new  edit.  vol.  ii.  pp.  114  ff. 


THE  ORTHODOX  CHURCH  IN  MODERN  RUSSIA  439 

Eussia  was  as  bad  as  the  worst  form  of  negro  slavery 
in  America. 

Nicholas  had  meditated  putting  a  stop  to  the  dreadful 
social  condition  of  his  empire  that  serfdom  involved ;  but  it 
was  left  for  his  son  to  carry  out  the  great  reform.  This 
was  done  in  the  year  1861.  The  landowners  received  an 
indemnity  from  the  State,  and  the  serfs  were  set  free  from 
all  bondage  to  them ;  at  the  same  time  the  land  of  the 
village  commune  was  made  the  actual  property  of  the 
peasants. 

Three  years  later  (a.d.  1864),  Alexander  released  the 
clergy  from  their  caste  bondage.  The  Church  was  now 
thrown  open  to  all  classes.  Nevertheless,  as  there  were  no 
parsonages  and  glebes  attached  to  the  parishes,  and  since 
each  pope's  house  and  the  land  he  cultivated  was  his  own 
property,  it  still  remained  necessary  for  a  newly  appointed 
priest  to  marry  his  predecessor's  daughter — unless  his  own 
father  was  a  priest  whom  he  might  succeed — in  order  to 
have  a  house  to  live  in  and  a  field  to  live  by. 

Some  other  slight  changes  have  since  been  effected  in 
the  social  life  of  the  people.  Count  Dmitri  Tolstoi,  when 
both  High  Procurator  and  Minister  of  the  Interior,  multi- 
plied the  parish  schools  and  put  them  under  the  direction 
of  the  local  clergy.  In  the  reign  of  Alexander  u.  there 
were  as  many  as  20,000  such  schools — on  paper.  Subse- 
quently the  Zemstvos  established  secular  schools,  before 
which  the  church  schools  shrank  up  and  withered  away. 
One  of  the  reactionary  measures  of  the  notorious  Pobie- 
donostsef  was  the  restoration  of  the  church  schools.  In 
1884  he  stated  to  the  Holy  Synod  that  the  parish  schools 
were  especially  intended  to  strengthen  the  people  in  the 
foundations  of  the  faith !  These  schools  were  then  placed 
Tmder  the  direction  of  the  Holy  Synod.^ 

There  is    tragic   irony  in    the    fate  of    the  tsar   who 

conferred  the  greatest  boons  on  his  people.     Alexander  had 

found  his  people  really  no  nation,  divided  by  a  gulf  of  social 

cleavage,  the  workers  mere  bondsmen  to  the  lords.     At  one 

^  Leroy  Beaulieu,  part  iii.  p.  265. 


440  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

stroke  he  had  granted  freedom,  if  not  social  equality.  His 
reward  was  assassination  by  agents  of  one  of  the  secret 
societies  formed  in  the  interests  of  liberty.  Nothing  could 
demonstrate  more  clearly  the  deep-rooted  disease  of  the  body 
politic.     And  yet  improvements  were  still  going  forward. 


CHAPTER    VII 

RUSSIAN   SECTS 

Books  named  in  Chap.  II. ;  also  Wallace,  Russia,  new  edit.,  1906, 
vol.  i. ;  W.  H.  Dixon,  Free  Rtissia,  1 870 ;  Heard,  The  Russian 
Church  and  Russian  Dissent,  1887  ;  Le  Raskol,  Essai  sur  les  Sectes 
religieuses  en  Russie,  1878  ;  Elkington,  The  Doukhobors,  1903 ; 
Dalton,  Der  Stundismus  in  Russland,  1896. 

Nonconformity  is  as  important  a  feature  of  the  history 
of  religion  in  Eussia  as  it  is  in  England.  But,  except  in 
the  case  of  the  more  recent  sects  which  owe  their  origin 
to  Western  Protestant  influences,  Eussian  dissent  is  very 
different  from  English  dissent.  The  typical  English  non- 
conformist is  an  opponent  of  ritualism  and  a  champion  of 
liberalism.  He  represents  the  Puritan  of  the  seventeenth 
century.  But  the  typical  Eussian  nonconformist  is  a 
martyr  to  a  rigorously  conservative  ritual.  Although 
there  are  now  in  Eussia  sects  of  an  opposite  character, 
the  "  Old  Dissent "  arose  as  a  protest  against  the  supposed 
innovations  in  the  ritual  of  the  Church  introduced  by 
Nicon's  revision  of  the  service  books.  It  is  known  as  the 
Raskbl  (a  Eussian  word  meaning  "  division  "  or  "  schism  ")  ; 
and  its  adherents  are  called  Raskolniks  ("  schismatics "). 
The  movement,  which  originated  in  the  seventeenth  century, 
soon  assumed  vast  proportions.  It  numbers  1,500,000 
persons  in  the  columns  of  the  census ;  but  many  more 
belong  to  it  who  do  not  make  this  open  profession  for 
fear  of  persecution,  and  it  is  estimated  to  contain  really 
some  twelve  or  fifteen  million  members.  These  consist 
almost  entirely  of  peasants,  or  persons  who  have  sprung 
from  the    peasant    classes.      None   are   found    among   the 


442  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

upper  classes,  who  look  down  on  the  Easkolniks  with 
contempt.  But  not  a  few  of  them  are  rich  men.  They 
engage  in  trade,  especially  in  money  -  lending.  Sober, 
honest,  industrious,  thrifty,  they  are  able  to  surpass  the 
orthodox  Eussians  in  the  competition  of  life.  They  are 
regarded  by  the  peasants  with  the  respect  due  to  their 
character  as  the  more  religious  people  of  the  land.  It 
is  said  that  if  you  come  upon  an  especially  clean,  well- 
kept  cabin  in  Eussia,  the  proprietor  will  turn  out  to 
be  an  old  dissenter.  The  Easkolnik  people  have  been 
credited  with  "  erudite  ignorance." 

But  the  movement  did  not  spring  from  any  new 
spiritual  awakening,  anything  like  a  revival,  such  as  we 
see  to  have  been  the  source  of  most  of  our  English  and 
American  separate  Christian  denominations.  It  started 
purely  in  protest  against  new  phrases  and  rubric  directions, 
and  these  were  not  innovations  on  sacred  originals,  but 
corrections  of  verbal  corruptions  and  changed  usages  which 
Nicon  and  the  scholars  who  helped  him  regarded  as  marks 
of  degeneration.  Thus  the  supposed  novelties  were  really 
reversions  to  antiquity.  But  this  was  not  admitted  by 
the  ignorant  peasants,  and  just  as  Jerome's  Vulgate,  which 
was  a  corrected  Latin  version  of  the  Bible  that  Pope 
Damasus  had  ordered  because  the  various  popular  versions 
were  very  corrupt,  was  nevertheless  received  with  suspicion 
and  hatred  by  the  mutitude ;  and,  as  the  English  Eevised 
Version  has  also  been  regarded  by  most  ignorant  Bible 
readers  with  dislike,  so  Nicon's  correction  of  the  service  book 
was  treated  as  an  irreverent  meddling  with  holy  words  and 
customs.  The  protest  was  pressed  to  the  smallest  minutiae. 
Thus  one  writer  says,  "  In  such  a  year  wiseacres  commenced 
to  say,  '  0  Lord  have  mercy  on  us,'  instead  of  *  Lord  have 
mercy  on  us.' "  The  Easkolniks  were  most  insistent  in 
holding  to  the  incorrect  spelling  of  om-  Lord's  name  as 
"  Issus,"  instead  of  accepting  Nicon's  correction  of  it  to 
"  lissus."  ^  But  perliaps  the  most  hated  innovation,  or 
rather  reversion  to  antiquity,  was  the  substitution  of  the 

^  The  second  "i"  is  pronounced  soft  like  the  7}  in  'ItjctoOs. 


RUSSIAN    SECTS  443 

sign  of  the  cross  with  three  fingers  for  the  sign  of  the 
cross  with  two  fingers.  To  accept  this  meant  that  children 
would  have  to  imlearn  a  practice  that  had  heen  taught 
them  at  their  mother's  knee.  Such  an  unsettling  of 
domestic  religion  was  not  to  be  thought  of.  On  these 
and  other  grounds  of  the  same  nature,  of  which  of  course 
they  found  an  abundance  in  a  corrected  version  of  the 
service  books,  the  Easkolniks  broke  off  from  the  ancient 
Church  of  Kussia.  It  is  their  opponents  who  call  them 
by  the  name  that  brands  them  with  the  sin  of  schism. 
The  title  that  they  take  for  themselves  is  Staro-viery,  which 
means  "  Old  Believers  " ;  they  are  the  people  who  cling  to 
the  faith  of  their  fathers.  Yet  deep  as  is  the  gulf  of  division 
thus  caused,  and  bitter  as  were  the  mutual  recrimina- 
tions  formerly  hurled  across  it,  there  is  no  difference  of 
theological  ideas  separating  the  two  parties.  Both  hold  to 
the  only  two  standards  of  faith  required  by  the  orthodox 
Church — the  Bible  and  the  Nicene  Creed  ;  nor  do  they 
differ  at  all  in  their  interpretations  of  Scripture  or  creed. 

These  old  dissenters  therefore  have  nothing  in  common 
with  Protestantism.  Their  origin  is  in  no  way  comparable 
with  the  contemporary  rise  of  various  sects  in  Western 
Europe.     They  are  Eussian  of  the  Kussians. 

In  course  of  time  various  influences  led  to  remark- 
able developments  among  the  "  Old  Believers "  in  very 
different  directions.  One  thmg,  however,  they  shared  in 
common :  they  were  all  regarded  as  schismatics,  and  there- 
fore they  were  aU  not  only  denoimced  by  the  Church  but 
regarded  with  disfavour  by  the  government.  It  was  not 
forgotten  that  the  corrections,  or  innovations,  were  intro- 
duced by  order  of  the  tsar  and  forced  on  the  Church  by 
imperial  authority.  Here  then  was  a  State  violation  of  the 
customary  order  of  the  Church.  The  Easkolniks  resented 
the  innovations  themselves,  and  they  were  indignant  at  the 
arbitrary  and  tyrannical  manner  in  which  they  were  made 
compulsory.  It  was  natural  enough  that  people  should  deem 
it  a  sacrilegious  outrage  for  government  officials  to  march 
into  the  churches,  seize  the  venerated  service  books,  deposit 


444  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

others  in  place  of  them,  and  by  order  of  the  tsar  command 
the  town  and  viUage  popes  to  use  the  novel  rubrics.  Later 
on,  when  Peter  the  Great  abolislied  the  patriarchate  and 
substituted  for  that  semi-indepeudent  office  his  own  nomi- 
nated Holy  Synod,  and  when  the  orthodox  Church  in 
Eussia  passed  more  than  ever  under  the  control  of  the 
State  and  its  bureaucratic  government,  the  dissenters  who 
stood  outside  these  movements  came  to  represent  to  some 
extent  the  Free  Church  idea.  They  were  not  attached  to 
the  State  ;  their  services  were  not  regulated  by  a  government 
department. 

The  Raskol  obtained  new  vigour  from  another  source — 
popular  resistance  to  Peter  the  Great's  Western  inno- 
vations. Here  it  was  on  solid  ground.  The  European 
customs  were  novel  to  Eussia,  and  many  now  rallied  to  the 
Old  Believers.  At  first  the  movement  had  been  confined 
to  Moscow ;  now  it  spread  all  over  Eussia.  Its  flames  were 
fanned  by  a  breeze  of  prejudiced  patriotism.  Thus  the 
Old  Believers  stood  for  Old  Eussia  and  Old  Eussian  ways. 
They  regarded  Peter's  novelties  as  portents  of  the  approach- 
ing end  of  the  world  and  advent  of  Antichrist.^  This  idea 
of  Antichrist  bulks  largely  in  the  Easkol.  Some  perhaps 
identify  him  with  the  tsar;  but  to  the  majority  who 
believe  in  his  presence  he  is  a  mysterious  personage  existing 
somewhere  in  the  world,  to  whose  malignant  machinations 
the  corruptions  of  the  Church  and  the  troubles  of  the 
nation  are  due.  Formerly  some  maintained  that  the  true 
Peter,  "  the  white  Tsar,"  had  perished  at  sea,  and  that  a 
Jew,  a  son  of  Satan  married  to  a  German  wife,  had  usurped 
his  place.      Hence  this  German  invasion  ! 

Old  Believers  were  found  objecting  to  everything  in 
the  way  of  European  innovations.  They  objected  to  the 
change  of  the  calendar;  they  objected  to  the  change  of 
dress — Peter's  substitution  of  European  costume  for  the 
Oriental  gowns  formerly  worn  by  Eussians ;  they  objected 
to  the  practice  of  shaving.  This  latter  novelty  was 
regarded  as  distinctly  heretical,  disfiguring  man  who  was 
*  Leroy  Beaulieu,  part  iii.  p.  299. 


RUSSIAN   SECTS  445 

created  in  the  image  of  God  and  "  likening  him  even  unto 
cats  and  dogs."  ^  So  serious  was  the  objection  felt  to  be, 
that  Peter  got  Dmitri  of  Eostoff  to  write  a  treatise  on 
"  The  Image  and  Likeness  of  God  in  Man,"  showing  its 
spiritual  character.  It  had  little  or  no  effect  on  the  Old 
Believers.  "The  image  of  God  is  the  beard,  and  the 
likeness  the  moustache,"  wrote  one  of  these  fanatics  as  late 
as  the  year  1836.  There  have  been  martyrs  to  the  beard. 
In  the  year  1874  a  recruit  was  punished  with  seven  years' 
imprisonment  for  mutiny  because  he  refused  to  be  shaved. 
This  i-s  the  Nemesis  of  image  worship.  The  image 
worshipper  can  only  conceive  of  God  in  the  form  of  a  con- 
ventional icon;  and  that  form,  with  the  bearded  aspect 
of  the  representation  of  the  First  Person  in  the  Trinity, 
becomes  itself  sacred  in  a  man. 

The  old  dissenters  divided  into  two  parties  soon  after 
the  origin  of  the  schism.  The  cause  of  this  division  was 
the  extraordinary  situation  produced  by  a  lack  of  bishops. 
In  the  days  of  Nicon  only  one  priest  stood  for  the  old  books 
— Paul  of  Kolomna.  This  man  was  imprisoned  for  his 
contumacy,  and  when  he  died  in  prison  there  was  nobody 
in  all  the  Easkol  who  was  competent  to  administer  the 
sacraments.  The  difficulty  which  now  stared  the  Old 
Believers  in  the  face  was  entirely  novel,  quite  without 
parallel.  Other  schisms  in  the  Church  which  did  not  deny 
episcopacy  had  carried  off  bishops  with  them.  Thus  there 
were  Marcionite  bishops  in  the  early  Church  who  were 
able  to  build  up  a  Marcionite  hierarcy.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Montanists  owed  their  very  existence  in  great  part  to 
a  protest  against  the  root  idea  of  an  autlioritative  priest- 
hood, and  in  this  they  were  followed  by  the  Protestant 
bodies  on  the  continent,  Lutheran  as  well  as  Eeformed. 
The  controversies  that  have  been  fought  on  the  question 
of  the  consecration  of  Archbishop  Parker  may  enable 
Anglican  High  Churchmen  to  sympathise  with  the  perplexity 
of  the  Eussian  Old  Believers.  But  the  Eussian  dissidents 
had  nobody  that  they  could  attempt  to  put  forward  on  any 
1  Ibid.  p.  305. 


446  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

pretext  as  a  bishop  in  the  apostolical  succession.  And  yet 
they  were  extreme  ritualists,  with  whom  the  validity  of 
the  sacraments  depended  absolutely  on  consecration  by  an 
episcopally  ordained  priest.  Here  was  a  dilemma  of  vital  con- 
sequence to  the  life  of  the  Easkol.  How  was  it  to  be  met  ? 
Two  answers  of  opposite  character  were  given  to  the  ques- 
tion thus  suddenly  raised  and  urgently  demanding  immediate  . 
settlement.  One  was  that  priests  must  be  obtained,  and 
this  course  was  found  more  or  less  practicable  in  course  of 
time  by  renegades  from  orthodoxy  deserting  to  the  Easkol. 
But  the  more  uncompromising  Old  Believers  refused  to 
admit  the  validity  of  the  priestly  grace  of  men  who  had 
been  in  the  degenerate  Church,  and  who  were  tainted  by 
their  usage  of  the  corrected  service  books.  These  people 
came  to  the  appalling  conclusion  that  there  was  no  true 
apostolic  succession  left  in  the  world,  no  valid  priesthood 
at  all.  The  holy  fire  on  the  altar  was  extinguished ;  and 
there  was  nobody  left  capable  of  rekindling  it.  •  The  two 
groups  were  known  respectively  as  the  Popbftsky,  or  "  priest 
people,"  and  the  Bef-popbftshy  or  "  no  -  priest  people." 
Subdivisions  followed,  so  that  the  Easkol  cannot  be 
regarded  as  a  sect  or  denomination ;  it  is  an  amorphous 
mass  of  very  divergent  sects  that  are  out  of  communion 
with  the  State  Church. 

The  Popbftsky  long  laboured  under  the  disadvantage  of 
depending  for  its  ministry  on  the  precarious  chance  of 
desertions  from  the  orthodox  Church.  At  length  this 
humiliating  and  harassing  condition  has  been  superseded  by 
the  establishment  of  an  independent  episcopacy,  and  the 
Old  Believers  of  the  priest  party  now  have  their  own 
ordained  popes.  In  the  year  1846  they  obtained  a  metro- 
politan in  the  person  of  a  Greek,  Ambrose,  formerly  a 
bishop  in  Bosnia,  who  had  been  deposed  by  the  patriarch  of 
Constantinople.  This  man  joined  the  Old  Believers  and 
was  accepted  by  them  as  their  ecclesiastical  head.  Unable 
to  live  in  Eussia,  owing  to  the  attitude  of  the  government 
towards  the  Easkol,  he  settled  at  a  place  called  "White 
Fountain,"    in    Austria,    near   the    Eussian    border.      The 


RUSSIAN   SECTS  447 

course  was  now  clear  for  a  complete  organisation  of  the  sect. 
Ambrose  at  once  proceeded  to  create  an  entire  hierarchy. 
But  this  was  not  accepted  without  demur  by  all  the  com- 
munity. They  stood  for  Eussian  isolation,  Eussia  for  the 
Eussian.  But  here  was  a  Greek  living  in  Austria  administer- 
ing the  affairs  of  the  Old  Believers.  If  there  were  war 
between  Austria  and  Eussia,  what  would  happen  ?  The 
position  was  most  objectionable.  Accordingly  in  the  year 
1868  a  council  of  this  branch  of  the  Easkol  was  held 
at  White  Fountain ;  but  it  only  led  to  an  accentuation  of 
the  differences  and  left  matters  worse  than  before.  The 
stiffer  members  of  the  priestly  party  refused  to  accept  the 
newly  imported  priesthood,  and  preferred  to  go  on  as  before 
relying  on  their  chance  to  obtain  deserters  from  among  the 
priests  of  the  orthodox  Church  in  Eussia.  They  could  have 
no  respect  for  priests  of  this  character.  Among  the  Old 
Believers  the  priests  have  a  lower  place  even  than  that  of 
the  village  popes  in  the  orthodox  Church.  They  are  treated 
as  mere  hirelings,  as  men  of  no  importance  on  their  own 
account,  only  used  to  give  efficacy  to  sacraments. 

The  Bef-'popbftsy,  the  "  no-priest "  party,  took  very 
different  lines.  They  organised  a  church  without  sacra- 
ments— excepting  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  which  could 
be  administered  by  laymen.  They  met  this  anomalous 
situation  in  various  ways.  Some  simply  bowed  to  the 
inevitable,  accepted  the  deprivation  as  a  judgment  of 
heaven,  and  waited  for  better  times.  They  were  like  a 
Western  people  suffering  from  a  papal  interdict.  This  was 
the  most  obvious  and  sensible  position  to  take  up.  It 
exactly  agreed  witli  the  logic  of  the  situation.  But  fanatics 
caricatured  it  ridiculously.  Thus  there  were  the  "  Gapers," 
who  would  stand  on  Holy  Thursday  with  their  months 
open  waiting  for  the  angels  to  feed  them. 

The  most  serious  question  which  rose  out  of  this 
anomalous  situation  was  concerned  witli  the  sacrament  of 
marriage.  If  all  sacraments  were  now  in  abeyance  owing 
to  the  absence  of  true  priests  to  administer  tliein,  marriage 
was  impossible,  for  this  too  was  a  sacrament.       The  recent 


448  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

contrivance  of  civil  marriage  was  not  then  in  existence,  and 
if  it  had  been,  rigorous  sacramentarians  who  were  incHned 
to  regard  the  government  as   Antichrist   would   not  have 
suliraitted  to  it.      Accordingly  all  marriage  was  forbidden 
by  the  no-priest  party.      Some  understood  this  requirement 
of  celibacy  in  a  pure,  ascetic  sense,  and  anticipated  the  end 
of  the  world  by  the  cessation  of  births.     Others  accepted  it 
as  an  excuse  for   illicit   connections,   which,  though   they 
admitted  them  to  be  sins,  they  regarded  as  lesser  sins  than 
marriage   by  a  priest  tainted  with  the  corruption  of  the 
orthodox   Church.      To  some  the  monstrous  position  thus 
brought  about  became  a  horror  which  should  be  put  an  end 
to  at  any  cost.     There  were  child-killers,  who  sent  young 
infants  straight  to  heaven  in  order  to  save  them  from  life 
in  a  world  now  subject  to  Antichrist.     People,  known  as 
"  clubbers,"  battered  old  men  and  women  to  death,  quoting 
our    Lord's    saying,    "  The    kingdom    of    heaven    suffereth 
violence,  and   the  \iolent   take   it  by   force."      One   sect, 
known  as  the  Phil ippoft shy,  sought  redemption  by  suicide. 
Whole  families,  whole  villages,  put  themselves  to  death. 
The  mania  was  propagated  by  prophets,  who  stood  by  to  see 
that    none   shrank   back  in  weakness  from  the   universal 
self-immolation.     Some  of  these    people    practised  "  fiery 
baptism,"  in  plain  words  incendiarism  and  death  by  burn- 
ing.    A  family  shuts  itself  up  in  its  cottage ;  brushwood 
is  heaped  about  it ;    the    prophet  sets    fire    to   the    fuel ; 
and  the  house  and  all  within  it  are  burnt.     Then  there 
were   the    Iskalcli    Khrista — "  Christ   seekers,"   who   went 
about    seeking    Christ  and   sometimes   believed   they  had 
found  Him  in  a  prince,  or  perhaps  a  peasant.      One  of  the 
most  curious  forms  that  the  association  of  the  idea  of  Anti- 
christ with  the  tsar's  government  took  is  said  to  have  been 
the  veneration  of  the  image  of  Napoleon  secretly  treasured 
in  the  home.     There  are  to  be  found   in  Russia  pictures 
representing    the    French    emperor    ascending    to    heaven 
surrounded  by  his  marshals.      It  was  rumoui'ed   that  he 
was  not  dead,  that  he  had  escaped  from  St.  Helena,  and  that 
he  was  in  Siberia  by  Lake  Baikal. 


RUSSIAN   SECTS  449 

Others,  taking  a  more  moderate  course,  but  influenced 
by  the  same  principles,  fled  from  the  contaminated  haunts  of 
civilisation  and  buried  themselves  in  deep  recesses  of  the 
forests.  In  1850  Nicolas  i.  had  the  cells  of  the  forest 
dissenters  destroyed.  The  Strdnniki,  or  "  Eunners,"  refused 
to  have  any  fixed  abode  in  this  world  of  Antichrist.  They 
were  pilgrims  and  strangers,  constantly  running  from  place 
to  place.  Fortunately  there  were  lay  brothers  living  in 
the  towns  and  villages  and  working  at  trades,  from  the 
proceeds  of  which  the  Mte  were  supported  during  their 
peripatetic  life.  The  Theodosians  would  not  eat  or  drink 
with  the  profane.  Another  sect,  the  PomortsTcy,  were  more 
liberal.  They  would  not  pray  for  the  "  imperator,"  for  that 
would  be  to  make  the  tsar  Antichrist.  But  they  would  pray 
for  the  "  tsar  "  under  this  more  modest  title.  In  the  present 
day  many  of  the  Old  Believers  of  the  "  no-priest "  party 
are  less  rigid  than  formerly.  They  will  permit  marriage 
as  a  civil  bond ;  but,  since  it  is  not  a  sacrament,  they  hold 
that  its  continuance  is  subject  to  mutual  consent. 

Too  much  importance  has  been  given  to  the  vagaries 
of  the  more  extravagant  sects  which  are  not  reckoned  as 
part  of  the  Raskol.  Similar  phenomena  have  appeared  in 
America,  and  yet  we  do  not  regard  them  as  characteristic 
of  American  religion.  The  same  must  be  said  of  those 
who  went  into  the  opposite  direction  to  the  ascetics,  and 
practised  free  love  "  on  principle."  The  Shakouni  or 
"  Jumpers,"  the  dervishes  of  Christendom,  cannot  be  re- 
garded as  Christian  at  all  if  they  are  guilty  of  the  practices 
with  which  they  are  charged.  The  performance  from 
which  they  derive  their  name  may  be  childishly  innocent, 
although  it  borders  on  insanity  and  has  no  real  religion  in 
it.  They  stand  in  circles,  men  and  women  facing  one 
another,  and  jump,  panting,  sobbing,  shouting,  screaming 
they  jump  higher  and  higher,  each  one  striving  to  be  the 
highest  jumper ;  when  the  excitement  is  most  intense  they 
break  up  and  take  their  own  courses,  some  whirling  madly 
round,  others  standing  transfixed  as  in  catalepsy.  The  com- 
mon belief  is  that  an  indescribably  shameless  scene  follows. 
29 


450  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

The  most  amazing  sect  is   that   of    the    Khlysty,   the 
members  of  which  are   said  to  have  invented  a  horrible 
ritual   for  the  Eucharist,  from  which  in  its  normal  form 
they  are  excluded  by  their  Raskol  tenets.       They  are  said 
to  hail  an  unmarried  woman  in  their  orgiastic  dance  as 
Bogorbclista,  "  mother  of    God,"   and  to  address  her  with 
the  words,  "  Thou  art  blessed  among  women.      Thou  shalt 
give  birth  to  a  Saviour."      If  the  young  woman  becomes  a 
mother  and  her  child  is  a  girl,  the  infant  is  brought  up  to 
succeed  as  a  new  Bogorudista ;  if  it  is  a  boy  it  is  regarded 
as   Christ.      This  Christ  child  is  said  to  be  killed  at  the 
altar  and  its  tiesh   and    blood    eaten    for    the    Eucharist. 
M.  Leroy  Beaulieu  quotes  several  Kussian   authorities  in 
support  of  these  charges,  which  lead  him  to  the  conclusion 
that  "  there  is  much  to  show  that  these  stories  are  not  pure 
inventions."  ^      But   we  must  remember  that  exactly   the 
same  things  were   said  about   the  early   Christian   Agape 
by    pagan    adversaries,    and    everybody    knows    that    the 
libels  were  absolutely  baseless.     Not  long  ago  there  were 
riots   in  Austria,   in   which  Jews  were  murdered  on  the 
ground  that  they  had  killed  and  eaten  a  Christian  child  at 
the  Passover.     Again  and  again  in  the  course  of  history 
similar  charges  have  been  brought  against  obnoxious  sects. 
On  the  other  hand,  not  only  has  a  grave  mass  of  testimony 
been  brought  against  the  Khlysty ;  but  it  must  be  acknow- 
ledged that  in  many  parts  of  Eussia  the  peasantry  are 
extremely  ignorant  and  little  removed  from  barbarism.      If 
these  awful  things  are  done  even  in  the  present  day,  they 
must  be  regarded  as  survivals  of  the  dark  vices  of  paganism 
among  people  who  were  never  truly  Christianised  or  who 
have  relapsed  from   Christianity  to  practical  heathenism. 
The  Church  cannot  afford  to  hold  up  her  hands  in  holy 
horror   at  these   abominations ;    for    it    is   the  neglect  of 
preaching  and  teaching,  and  the  conduct  of  her  services 
purely  as  ceremonies  apart  from  spiritual  thought  and  life, 
that  have  left  the  poor  people  to  become  the  prey  of  evil 
influences.      Nevertheless  it  is  probable  that  the  vilest  of 
1  Opua  cit.  p.  420. 


RUSSIAN    SECTS  451 

these  practices,  if  carried  on  at  all,  are  very  rare  indeed, 
and  that  some  of  those  communities  in  which  they  were 
once  found  are  now  quite  clear  of  them. 

There  is  one  sect,  however,  the  nature  of  whose  doings 
cannot  be  doubted.  This  consists  of  the  Skopsty,  the 
"  Eunuchs,"  the  members  of  which  may  be  recognised  by 
their  pallid  faces,  tliin  voices,  and  unmanly  bearing.  Re- 
garding marriage  as  impossible  owing  to  the  failure  of 
sacramental  grace,  they  aim  at  removing  all  difficulties  in 
that  direction  by  mutilating  themselves.  This  is  not  done 
to  them  in  childhood,  but  after  attaining  to  manhood,  when 
the  operation  is  very  serious.  Some  of  them  have  children 
first,  for  the  propagation  of  the  sect.  But  they  are  found 
in  two  grades.  There  are  some  to  whom  marriage  is 
allowed  ;  and  others,  the  elect,  become  eunuchs.  The  elect 
are  credited  with  direct  inspiration  from  God  with  the 
gift  of  prophecy,  which  issues  in  ecstasy.  But  in  daily 
life  they  are  the  mildest  and  simplest  of  men. 

None  of  these  extravagant  sects  can  be  called  Chris- 
tian. They  have  attracted  much  attention  on  account  of 
their  eccentricities  and  owing  to  the  sensational  descrip- 
tions of  them  that  have  appeared  in  popular  books.  But 
they  are  not  symptomatic  of  the  Easkol  or  of  religion  in 
Russia. 

Of  an  entirely  different  character  are  the  movements 
carried  on  among  earnest  Christian  people  of  high  character, 
the  very  salt  of  the  land.  The  most  important  of  these 
Russian  dissenters  are  the  Mohicans'^  and  the  Dovkhobors 
("  Spirit  -  wrestlers ").  These  two  bodies  have  much  in 
common,  and  their  members  pass  freely  from  one  to  the 
other.  They  not  only  stand  outside  the  State  Church  like 
the  Easkol,  but  they  entirely  repudiate  the  hierarchical  and 
sacerdotal  system  of  the  orthodox  communion.     They  reject 

^  Said  to  be  so  named  as  "milk-drinkers"  from  their  habit  of  taking 
milk  and  food  prepared  from  milk  on  the  fast  days  when  it  is  prohibited  by 
the  orthodox  Church,  but  more  probably  so  called  after  the  name  Molot- 
chnaya,  a  river  in  the  south  of  Russia,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  which  they 
once  flourished. 


452  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

episcopacy  and  sacramentarianism,  and  they  are  altogether 
opposed  to  rites  and  ceremonies.  Their  aim  is  to  promote 
spiritual  religion  by  spiritual  means.  Both  of  them  rely 
upon  the  Bible ;  but  while  the  Molokans  do  so  exclusively, 
the  Doukhobors  also  appeal  to  the  inward  testimony  of 
the  Spirit.  We  may  compare  the  one  party  with  the 
Presbyterians  and  the  other  with  the  Society  of  Friends. 
They  both  call  themselves  Istinie  Khristiane  ("  True "  or 
"  Spiritual  Christians  ").  In  their  rejection  of  sacrament- 
arianism they  are  the  direct  opposite  of  the  Kaskolniks, 
who  are  fanatics  of  ritual.  "  The  Easkolnik,"  they  say, 
"  will  die  a  martyr  for  the  right  to  make  the  sign  of  the 
cross  with  two  fingers ;  we  do  not  cross  ourselves  at  all, 
either  with  two  or  with  three  fingers ;  we  strive  to  attain 
a  better  knowledge  of  God."  ^  These  people  reject  all  the 
characteristic  forms  of  Eussian  worship,  not  only  the 
repeated  crossing  of  themselves  by  the  worshippers,  but 
the  genuflections  and  prostrations  (poJcloni)  which  are  so 
prominent  in  the  religious  observances  of  Eussia.  They 
will  have  nothing  to  do  with  icons.  "  God  is  a  Spirit," 
they  say,  "and  images  are  but  idols.  A  picture  is  not 
Christ ;  it  is  but  a  bit  of  painted  board.  We  believe  in 
Christ,  not  a  Christ  of  brass,  nor  of  silver,  nor  of  gold,  the 
work  of  men's  hands,  but  in  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  Saviour 
of  the  world."  2 

It  is  difficult  to  trace  the  origin  of  these  sects.  In  the 
year  1689,  Kullmann,  a  disciple  of  Jacob  Boehm,  was  burnt 
at  Moscow ;  in  1710  Procopius  Lupin  was  condemned  for 
asserting  that  the  Church  had  lost  the  true  spirit  of 
Christianity  ;  and  in  1714  Dmitri  Tvaritenev  was  convicted 
by  a  synod  of  spreading  Calvinistic  ideas.  It  is  reasonable 
to  suppose  that  Eussian  Protestantism  had  some  connection 
with  the  Protestantism  of  Germany  and  Switzerland,  which 
it  resembles  to  a  great  extent ;  but  this  connection  has 
not  been  definitely  traced  out.' 

The  Molokans  ascribe  the  origin  of  their  movement  to 

^  Heard,  Russian  Church  and  Russian  Dissent,  p.  27-1. 
"  Ibid.  p.  275.  8  Ibid.  pp.  276-7. 


RUSSIAN   SECTS  453 

the  visit  of  an  English  physician  to  Moscow  in  the  reign  of 
Ivan  the  Terrible,  who  introduced  the  reading  and  study 
of  the  Bible.  It  would  appear  that  it  is  more  owing  to 
this  Bible  study  by  Kussians  themselves  than  to  any  direct 
Protestant  evangelisation  that  they  came  to  adopt  scriptural 
ideas  of  Christianity.  And  yet  the  thorough  protestantism 
of  the  confession  of  faith  they  presented  to  the  government 
shows  that  the  same  ideas  were  in  them  that  were  working 
in  the  continental  Calvinists  and  English  Puritans.  This 
confession  concludes  with  the  following  statement :  "  Besides 
the  holy  sacraments,  we  accept  the  Word  of  God  and 
inward  faith  as  our  guides.  We  do  not  consider  ourselves 
as  not  sinful,  nor  as  holy,  but  work  out  our  own  salvation 
with  fear  and  trembhng,  in  the  hope  of  attaining  it 
solely,  and  alone,  through  belief  in  Jesus  Christ,  the  only 
begotten  Son  of  God,  and  the  fulfilment  of  the  commands 
of  the  Lord ;  we  have  no  power  of  ourselves  to  effect  this, 
but  obtain  it  only  through  living  faith  in  our  intercessor 
and  redeemer,  Jesus  Christ."^  Nothing  could  be  more 
completely  evangelical  than  that.  Even  the  reference  to 
the  sacraments  refers  only  to  their  symbolical  character. 

Mr.  Wallace  gives  us  an  interesting  account  of  the 
Molokans  drawn  up  from  personal  enquiries  among  mem- 
bers of  the  sect.  The  results  of  the  enquiries  agree  in 
the  main  with  what  we  learn  from  other  sources.  They 
show  that  these  people  take  for  their  model  the  early 
Apostohc  Church  as  depicted  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
reject  all  later  authorities.  They  have  no  hierarchy  and  no 
paid  clergy.  Each  congregation  chooses  one  presbyter  and 
two  assistants,  who  must  be  men  of  exemplary  life  well 
acquainted  with  the  Scriptui-es,  and  whose  duty  it  is  to  take 
pastoral  oversight  of  the  religious  and  moral  welfare  of  the 
flock.  They  meet  on  Sundays  in  private  houses — chuich- 
building  by  heretics  being  forbidden — and  spend  two  or 
three  hours  in  singing,  prayer,  reading  of  Scripture,  and 
conference  on  religious  topics.     A  member  will  state  some 

»  Haxthausen,  The  Russian  Empire  (tiaus.  by  R.  Farie,  1856),  quoted  by 
Heard,  p.  276. 


454  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

religious  difficulty.  The  brethren  then  discuss  the  ques- 
tion and  decide  it  by  api)eal  to  Scripture,  which  they  know 
well  and  can  quote  freely.  The  moral  discipline  of  this 
Church  is  very  strict.  It  has  been  disturbed  from  time  to 
time  by  the  appearance  of  fanatical  prophets,  but  its 
members  have  had  the  good  sense  to  see  through  them 
and  not  to  be  led  astray.  Its  numbers  are  considerable, 
perhaps  amounting  to  several  hundred  thousand.^ 

In  the  year  1814  one  of  the  leading  Molokans 
among  the  colony  by  the  Molotchnaya  was  arrested  for 
proselytising  and  thrown  into  prison.  For  the  most  part 
the  Kussian  government  has  followed  the  example  of 
the  broad-minded  Eoman  Empire  in  leaving  each  religious 
community  undisturbed  so  long  as  it  remained  quiet  and 
self-contained.  Even  the  Church  in  Eussia,  with  all  the 
rigour  of  its  boasted  orthodoxy,  does  not  trouble  to  follow 
the  example  of  the  Eoman  Catholic  Inquisition  and  enquii-e 
into  the  private  opinions  of  people,  if  those  opinions  are 
kept  private.  This  nonchalance  with  regard  to  heresy  is 
a  natural  consequence  of  an  exclusive  regard  for  ritual. 
Where  religion  is  almost  wholly  an  external  affair,  it 
logically  follows  that  ideas  count  for  little  or  nothing. 
But  the  case  is  altered  immediately  a  heretic  bestirs  him- 
self to  spread  his  notions  abroad,  because  the  result  may 
be  not  only  to  poison  the  minds  of  the  orthodox,  but 
even  to  lead  them  to  break  from  the  Church  and  its 
usages. 

In  course  of  time  the  colony  at  Molotchnaya  became 
very  much  disorganised.  Twenty  years  later  (a.d.  1834) 
a  government  enquiry  was  said  to  have  resulted  in  con- 
victing them  of  abominable  practices.  But  this  must 
not  be  accepted  as  any  real  proof  of  guilt.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  the  Molokans  generally  are  people  of  most 
worthy  character.  Still,  Nicholas  I.  took  advantage  of  the 
finding  of  the  enquiry  to  order  aU  people  of  both  sects, 
the  Doukhobors  as  well  as  the  Molokans,  to  return  to  the 
orthodox  Church  on   pain  of  exile.     As  they  would  not 

^  Eussia,  uew  edit.  vol.  i,  chap.  xvii. 


RUSSIAN    SECTS  455 

yield,  he  ordered  them  to  be  transported  to  the  Caucasus 
(a.d.  1840).  There  the  Molokans  have  built  villages  and 
become  prosperous  in  their  industry  and  thrift. 

The  Doukhobors  have  more  mystical  tendencies. 
Possibly  they  inherit  ideas  and  influences  from  the 
Boffomiles,  and  so  continue  that  tradition  of  Protestantism 
in  the  Eastern  Church  which  was  long  cherished  by  the 
Paulicians  in  Armenia.  As  "  champions  of  the  Spirit  "  the 
Doukhobors  are  less  bound  to  the  letter  of  Scripture  than 
the  Molokans.  Their  doctrine  of  the  indwelling  Christ,  so 
rich  and  fruitful  when  spiritually  accepted,  has  been  taken 
too  literally  by  some  of  their  people.  Kapoustine,  a  dis- 
tinguished leader  of  the  body,  gave  prominence  to  the  idea 
that  Christ  is  born  again  in  every  believer,  while  he  taught 
the  immanence  of  God  in  all  mankind.  His  theology  was 
Adoptionist.  God  descended  into  Jesus  and  made  Him  Christ 
because  He  was  the  purest  and  most  perfect  of  mankind. 
From  generation  to  generation,  however,  this  incarnation 
has  been  repeated.  "  Thus,"  Kapoustine  said,  "  Sylvan 
Kolisnisk,  of  whom  the  older  among  you  know,  was  Jesus ; 
but  now,  as  truly  as  the  heaven  is  above  me  and  the  earth 
under  my  feet,  I  am  the  true  Jesus  Christ  your  Lord  ! "  He 
was  taken  at  his  word  and  adored,  for  the  Eussian  peasant 
is  credulous.  Such  an  aberration,  however,  is  not  charac- 
teristic of  the  community  as  a  whole.  It  is  merely  a 
fanatical  perversion  of  its  central  principle — a  principle 
which  it  shares  with  the  soberest  of  Quakers.  The  Doukh- 
obors are  abstainers  from  alcohol,  non-smokers,  and  for 
the  most  part  vegetarians.  Communism  is  with  them  a 
religious  principle.^ 

The  first  known  apostle  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Doukh- 
obors was  a  returned  soldier,  or  a  German  prisoner,  who 
appeared  at  a  village  in  Ukraina  about  the  year  1740. 
Therefore  the  sect  is  more  recent  than  the  kindred  body  of 
the  Molokans.  They  are  said  to  have  issued  a  confession 
of  faith  in  the  year  1791.  By  the  end  of  the  eighteenth 
century    they   had    spread    from    Moscow   to    the   Volga. 

*  Elkington,  The  Doukhobors,  p.  147. 


456  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Persecuted  by  the  Tsar  Paul  on  political  grounds,  many 
were  exiled  to  Siberia. 

In  the  year  1797  the  Doukhobors  were  savagely 
persecuted  with  the  knout,  the  slitting  of  their  noses, 
imprisonment  in  small  cells,  and  hard  labour.  The  ground 
of  this  persecution  was  a  charge  of  attempting  to  convert 
the  orthodox  to  their  heresy.  Senator  Laputkin  wrote  in 
1806,  "No  sect  has  up  to  this  time  been  so  cruelly 
persecuted  as  the  Doukhobortsi ;  and  this  is  certainly  not 
because  they  are  the  most  harmful."  ^  Alexander  i.,  being 
more  tolerant  of  dissent  than  his  predecessors,  granted 
these  people  land  near  the  Sea  of  Azoff.  Unhappily  a 
division  took  place  among  them  in  the  year  1886,  followed 
by  a  lawsuit,  which  resulted  in  the  banishment  of  the 
defeated  party  to  Siberia.  A  more  unhappy  episode  in 
the  history  of  a  persecuted  church  has  rarely  been  recorded 
in  history.  They  had  not  profited  spiritually  by  Alex- 
ander's clemency.  But  to  their  credit  it  should  be  added 
that  the  appeal  to  the  law  was  made  by  quite  a  minority 
of  the  sect ;  the  majority  suffered  for  no  fault  of  their  own. 
Soon  after  this  they  experienced  a  religious  revival.  In 
recent  days  they  have  been  persecuted — if  that  word  may 
still  be  used — by  the  government  for  refusing  military 
service.  But  in  justice  to  the  tsars  it  should  be  admitted 
that  where  conscription  exists  it  must  be  enforced.  The 
fault  is  in  the  odious  system.  This  has  led  to  the  emigra- 
tion of  Doukhobors  and  the  establishment  of  a  colony  of 
them  in  Canada. 

The  one  Eussian  sect  that  is  certainly  an  offshoot  of 
Western  Protestantism  is  the  sect  of  the  Stundists.  It 
originated  in  the  direct  influence  of  a  colony  of  German 
settlers  near  Odessa.  Among  these  colonists  wore  some 
who  called  themselves  "  Friends  of  God,"  and  met  for  the 
reading  of  the  Bible  during  their  leisure  hours  ^  under  a 
leader  named  Michael  Eatuzny.  Their  principles  were 
those  of  a  simple  evangelical  faith  together  with  the  special 

1  Elkington,  The  Doukhobors,  p.  243. 

'  Hence  the  name  "Stundist"  from  Stunden,  hours. 


RUSSIAN   SECTS  457 

tenets  of  the  Baptist.  In  a  word,  they  were  German 
Baptists.  These  Teutonic  emigrants  were  essentially  mis- 
sionaries in  spirit,  because  they  were  genuine  Christians. 
At  first  they  only  attempted  to  influence  their  neighbours 
morally  and  spiritually,  without  making  any  effort  to 
detach  them  from  the  orthodox  Church.  But  as  Eussian 
converts  began  to  gather  about  them,  these  followers  felt  it 
necessary  of  their  own  accord  to  break  away  from  the  national 
Church  and  found  independent  communities.  Thus  the 
movement  spread.  From  Odessa  and  the  government  of 
Kherson  it  passed  on  to  the  neighbouring  provinces  of 
Ekaterinoslaff  and  Kiev.  The  Stundists  are  a  sober,  frugal, 
industrious,  intelligent,  peaceable  people,  obedient  to  the 
laws,  and  exact  in  the  payment  of  the  taxes.  They  are 
said  to  advocate  an  equal  division  of  the  land,  and  they 
may  have  socialistic  tendencies.  But  they  have  not  tried 
to  put  these  views  in  force  by  revolutionary  methods.  If 
the  Eussian  autocracy  had  been  broad-minded  and  far- 
seeing  it  would  have  welcomed  the  appearance  of  such 
a  people  as  the  best  harbinger  of  the  regeneration  of 
the  country.  Instead  of  this  the  government  has  dealt 
with  them  harshly,  breaking  up  their  communities  and 
scattering  the  individual  members.  This  policy,  the  aim 
of  which  is  to  destroy  the  heresy,  has  had  the  very 
opposite  effect.  It  has  sown  the  seed  broadcast.  Every 
exiled  Stundist  is  a  missionary  of  evangelical  truth  in  the 
district  to  which  he  is  sent.  Stundism  is  the  only  religious 
novelty  that  has  appeared  in  the  south  of  Eussia.  All  the 
other  schisms  and  heresies  arose  at  Moscow  or  farther  north 
or  west.  But,  thanks  to  the  policy  of  the  government, 
this  promising  awakening  of  religious  life  is  now  to  be 
met  with  in  widely  separated  parts  of  the  empire.  It  is 
spreading  rapidly  in  the  neighbourhood  of  St.  Petersburg. 
Amidst  the  terrible  troubles  with  which  the  realm  of  the 
tsar  is  oppressed,  some  see  the  greatest  hope  in  this 
remarkable  growth  of  an  earnest  religious  life  of  a  Pro- 
testant type. 

A   study  of   religion   in   Eussia  would   be  incomplete 


458  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

without  some  reference  to  Count  Tolstoi  (Leo  Nieolajvitch), 
whose  ideas  are  well  known  throughout  the  world.  They 
are  based  on  a  literal  insistence  on  the  words  of  Christ  as 
the  law  of  the  Christian  life.  This  involves  not  only 
non-resistance,  but  the  denial  of  any  government  by  force, 
and  the  unlimited  application  of  our  Lord's  direction 
to  give  to  all  who  ask  for  help ;  the  abolition  of  war, 
oaths,  law  courts,  prisons  and  ])uuishment,  wealth  and 
luxury ;  and  the  practice  of  universal  brotherhood  in  peace 
and  charity. 


DIVISION    IV 

THE  SYRIAN  AND  ARMENIAN  CHURCHES 


CHAPTER    I 
EARLY  SYRIAN  CHRISTIANITY 

(o)  Eusebius,  Hist.  Ecd.  i.  13  ;  Sozomen,  Hist.  Ecd.  iii.  16  ; 
Ephraim  the  Syrian  ;  The  Homilies  of  Aphraates  (Wright, 
1869);  The  Doctrine  of  Addai  (Cureton's  "Ancient  Syriac 
Documents,"  1864). 

(b)  Harnack,  Expansion  of  Christianity,  Book  iv.  Chap.  iii.  iii.  5  ; 
Tixeront,  Les  Origines  de  V^glise  d'^desse,  1888  ;  Texte  u. 
Unters.  ix.  1  ;  Duval,  La  Litterature  Syriaque  (2nd  edit., 
1900)  ;  Burkitt,  Early  Eastern  Christianity,  1904,  and  Intro- 
duction to  Evangelion  da  MepharreshCf  1904. 

Four  influences  have  combined  to  keep  the  extreme 
Eastern  portion  of  Christendom  apart  from  the  main  body 
of  the  Greek  Church.  These  may  be  described  respectively 
as  geographical,  political,  linguistic,  and  doctrinal. 

Geographically  the  churches  of  the  Euphrates  valley 
and  those  which  were  planted  farther  east  were  separated 
from  the  churches  to  the  west  of  them  by  the  Syrian 
desert,  the  crossing  of  which  was  an  expedition,  as  Zerub- 
babel,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah  had  found  in  ancient  times. 

Politically  the  region  in  which  they  were  situated 
when  not  independent  was  only  connected  with  the  Roman 
Empire  at  intervals,  and  was  more  continuously  subject  to 
Parthian  and  Persian  sovereigns.  At  the  time  of  the  intro- 
duction of  Christianity  it  was  governed  by  its  local  rulers, 
whose  names  indicate  an  Arabian  origin. 

No   doubt  these  two  factors  helped  to  estabhsh   the 

4fid 


4G0  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

third.  In  tlioir  isolation  the  Christians  retained  their  own 
language,  which  was  a  branch  of  the  Aramaic  that  had 
once  been  picvaloiit  over  all  the  region  between  the 
Euphrates  and  the  Mediterranean,  but  which  had  subse- 
quently given  place  to  Greek  in  the  parts  subject  to  the 
Roman  Empire.  This  will  account  for  the  difference  be- 
tween the  Aramaic  of  the  Targums  and  some  parts  of  the 
Old  Testament  and  the  Christian  Syriac  represented  by 
versions  of  the  Bible  and  those  patristic  writings  that 
arose  in  Mesopotamia.  The  Palestinian  Aramaic  probably 
used  by  our  Lord  and  His  disciples,  and  in  which  perhaps 
St.  Matthew  wrote  his  Logia — unless  he  employed  the 
classic  Hebrew — was  very  soon  superseded  in  the  Church 
by  Greek,  the  lingua  franca  of  all  the  civilised  races  round 
the  Mediterranean.  It  may  have  been  the  dialect  of  the 
"  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews "  and  of  the  Ebionite 
Gospel ;  but  it  was  not  the  language  of  the  churches  of 
Antioch  and  Western  Syiia.  When,  therefore,  Christianity 
appeared  in  the  distant  region  of  the  Euphrates,  where  a 
slightly  dilTcreut  dialect  was  used,  it  came  in  a  Greek 
form,  and  in  the  first  instance  its  promoters  had  to  provide 
translations  of  the  Gospels  and  other  Christian  writings, 
since  the  people  of  the  land  did  not  understand  Greek. 
These  translations  and  the  original  Christian  writings 
which  sprang  up  in  the  same  district  in  the  local  dialect 
came  to  be  designated  Syriac.  In  other  words,  Syriac  is 
now  the  name  of  the  language  employed  in  the  Christian 
literature  of  Eastern  Syria,  as  distinguished  from  Aramaic, 
which  was  the  slightly  different  and  older  language  of 
Palestine,  afterwards  superseded  by  Greek.  A  church 
using  the  Syriac  language  and  producing  its  own  literature 
in  that  language  inevitably  tended  to  a  certain  individuality. 
But  these  three  influences — the  geographical,  the 
political,  and  the  linguistic — were  far  outweighed  in  im- 
portance by  the  fourth,  the  doctrinal.  This  counted  for 
much  more  than  all  the  others  put  together.  Deserts  can 
be  crossed,  governments  defied,  languages  translated  ;  but 
heresy  remains  separated  from  orthodoxy  by  an  impassable 


EARLY    SYRIAN    CHRISTIANITY  461 

chasm.  The  Eastern  Syrian  Christians  were  early  sus- 
pected of  heresy  imbibed  from  Tatian  and  Barsedanes. 
But  the  slight  irregularities  which  might  have  been  de- 
tected then  were  soon  overcome.  It  is  later  that  we  see 
the  great  schisms  produced  first  by  Nestorian  and  then  by 
the  Monophysite  heresies  resulting  in  the  establishment  of 
the  Nestorian  and  Jacobite  Churches,  both  of  them  anathe- 
matised by  the  orthodox  Church. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  we  must  understand  that 
Syrian  Christianity — in  the  early  stages  of  its  development 
— is  the  Christianity  of  the  people  speaking  Syriac  and 
living  so  far  to  the  east  that  we  scarcely  think  of  their 
home  as  Syria  at  all  Meanwhile  the  Greek-speaking 
Syrians  in  the  west,  with  their  headquarters  at  Antioch,  are 
a  different  body  of  Christians,  and  form  an  integral  portion 
of  the  Greek  Church  till  they  too  are  cut  off,  first  by 
heresy,  and  then  by  Islam.  The  headquarters  of  Syrian 
Christianity,  and  at  first  apparently  its  only  centre,  was 
the  city  of  Edessa,  known  in  the  vernacular  as  Urhai, 
and  now  represented  by  Urfa,  the  capital  of  the  district 
which  the  Greeks  named  Osrhoene,  situated  to  the  east  of 
the  Euphrates.  While  it  is  uncertain  at  what  time  and 
by  what  means  the  city  was  evangelised,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  this  was  not  later  than  the  second  half  of  the 
second  century  of  the  Christian  era ;  possibly  the  new 
light  began  to  dawn  in  this  far-off  Eastern  capital  even 
before  the  middle  of  that  century.  The  legend  of  Addai 
and  King  Abgar,  which  would  carry  it  back  to  the  times  of 
Christ's  life  on  earth,  is  manifestly  unhistorical.  Eusebius 
repeats  it  without  any  question  as  to  its  genuineness  ;  ^ 
and  it  is  contained  in  a  Syriac  form  in  the  Doctrine  of 
Addai,  an  apocryphal  book  of  "  acts  "  written  at  the  end 
of  the  thu'd  century  or  the  beginning  of  the  fourth. 
Apart  from  the  absence  of  earlier  testimony  and  the 
inherent  improbability  of  the  story,  it  is  condenmed  by 
obvious  anachronisms.^ 

'  ffist.  Eccl.  i.  13. 

2  Thus  it  refers  to  Eleutheropolis  in  Palestine,  a   name   that  was  first 


462  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Nevertheless,  the  legend  is  important  both  on  account 
of  its  popularity  and  because  it  contains  hints  of  actual 
facts,  for  evidently  it  comes  from  earlier  times  than  the 
age  of  the  written  records  in  which  it  is  preserved. 
According  to  this  legend.  King  Abgar,  who  is  suffering 
from  a  terrible  disease,  having  heard  of  the  cures  our  Lord 
is  working,  sends  for  Jesus  to  come  and  heal  him.  Jesus, 
while  not  coming  in  person,  writes  him  a  letter  in  which 
He  promises  to  send  one  of  His  disciples  who  will  cure 
the  king's  disease.  Although  we  have  no  ground  for 
admitting  this  letter  to  be  genuine,  it  has  become  a  historic 
composition  because  of  its  wide  acceptance  and  the  im- 
mense veneration  with  which  it  has  been  regarded.  It 
was  found  in  the  year  1900,  preceded  by  the  king's  letter 
to  Jesus,  inscribed  in  Greek  characters  of  about  the  age  of 
Eusebius  on  a  lintel  at  Ephesus.  At  the  time  of  the 
Heptarchy  our  Anglo-Saxon  ancestors  copied  the  letter  out 
and  wore  it  as  a  charm  "  against  lightning  and  hail  and  perils 
by  sea  and  land,  by  day  and  night  and  in  dark  places."  ^ 
Thus  its  subsequent  history  has  given  it  a  factitious  value 
that  makes  it  worth  being  quoted  in  full.  The  letter  is 
addressed  to  the  notary  Hanan,  who  has  found  Jesus  at  the 
house  of  Gamaliel,  the  chief  of  the  Jews.  It  runs  as 
follows :  "  Go  and  say  to  thy  Lord  that  sent  thee  unto  me, 
Happy  art  thou,  that  though  thou  hast  not  seen  me,  thou 
hast  believed  in  me  ;  for  it  is  written  of  me  that  they 
which  see  me  will  not  believe  in  me,  and  they  which  see 
me  not, — they  will  believe  in  me.      Now  as  to  what  thou 

attached  to  the  place  by  Septimius  Severus  in  A.D.  200.  Moreover,  the 
legend  can  be  accounted  for  in  some  measure  by  the  discovery  of  the  actual 
fact  that  was  the  gorm  out  of  which  it  grew  through  the  very  natural 
confusion  of  two  persons  of  the  same  name  ;  and  to  account  for  a  legend  in 
this  way  is  always  the  clinching  argument  that  demolishes  its  claim.  Abgar 
IX.,  a  later  king  of  Edessa,  paid  a  visit  to  Rome  during  the  bishopric  ofZephy- 
rinus  (a.d.  202-218),  and  the  name  of  Zephyrinus  is  also  connected  with 
Edessa  through  Sorapion  of  Antioch.  This  Abgar  may  well  have  sent  an 
embassy  to  Eleutheropolis.  His  earlier  namesake  could  not  possibly  have 
done  so  nearly  two  centuries  before  the  name  of  the  place  existed. 

'  Doin  Kuyi)er's  Book  of  Cenie,  p.  205,  cited  by  Burkitt,  Early  Eastern 
ChTisttanity,  p.  15. 


EARLY    SYRIAN    CHRISTIANITY  463 

hast  written  to  me,  that  I  should  come  unto  thee, — that 
for  which  I  was  sent  hither  hath  now  come  to  an  end,  and 
I  go  up  unto  my  Father  that  sent  me ;  but  when  I  have 
gone  up  unto  Him,  I  will  send  thee  one  of  my  disciples, 
that  whatever  disease  thou  hast  he  may  heal  and  cure. 
And  all  that  are  with  thee  he  shall  turn  to  life  eternal, 
and  thy  town  shall  be  blessed  and  no  enemy  shall  have 
dominion  over  it  for  ever  and  ever."  ^  The  reader  must 
be  struck  with  the  antique  tone  of  this  document.  In 
particular,  the  antithetical  sentence,  "  They  which  see  me 
will  not  believe  in  me,  and  they  which  see  me  not, — 
they  will  believe  in  me,"  is  exactly  in  the  style  of  the 
Oxyrhynchus  Logia} 

Still  following  the  legend,  we  see  Addai,  one  of  the 
"  Seventy,"  despatched  by  Thomas  to  Edessa  after  the 
resurrection  of  Christ,  with  the  result  that  the  king  is 
immediately  healed ;  whereupon  he  and  a  great  number  of 
his  people  are  converted  to  Christianity.  Addai  is  said 
to  have  laboured  at  Edessa  to  the  end  of  his  life,  and  to 
have  died  a  natural  death.  He  is  succeeded  by  Aggai, 
who  suffers  martyrdom  under  Ma'nu,  a  heathen  son  of 
Abgar,  his  legs  being  broken  while  he  is  sitting  at  church. 
Aggai  having  no  time  to  ordain  his  successor  Palut,  the 
latter  goes  to  Antioch  and  there  receives  ordination  from 
Serapion.  Here  we  come  out  of  the  mist  of  legend  into 
the  light  of  history.  But  Serapion  did  not  become  bishop 
of  Antioch  till  a.d.  190.      Evidently  then  Palut  cannot  be 

1  Burkitt,  pp.  13,  14. 

2  A  seeming  proof  of  great  antiquity  may  be  found  in  the  last  sentence, 
which  promises  Abgar  that  no  enemy  shall  have  dominion  over  his  town  for 
ever  and  ever.  This  sentence,  which  is  contained  in  the  Ephesian  inscrip- 
tion as  well  as  in  the  Doctrine  of  Addai,  is  discreetly  omitted  by  Eusebius, 
who  thus  shows  that  he  is  aware  of  the  sack  of  Edessa  by  Lucius  Quietus, 
under  Trajan.  And  yet,  to  place  it  at  a  more  ancient  date  than  that  is 
to  set  back  the  origin  of  Christianity  too  early  for  all  the  other  evidence. 
Therefore  we  seem  driven  to  reverse  the  argument,  and  to  see  in  this  state- 
ment a  reason  for  dating  the  letter  considerably  later,  when  the  disaster  was 
not  in  mind.  At  all  events,  one  thing  is  certain  :  it  could  not  have  heen 
written  in  the  earlier  decades  of  the  first  century  when  that  horror  was  in 
the  memories  of  the  Syrian  Christians. 


464  THE    fJRRKK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

brouglit  so  near  to  one  of  our  Lord's  personal  disciples  as 
the  story  suggests.  But  he  is  important  in  another  way, 
as  we  shall  see  later  on.  Palut  represents  the  advent  of 
Antiochene  influence  over  the  far-off  Syrian  Church  be- 
yond the  desert  and  the  river.  Hitherto  the  Christianity 
of  Edessa  had  been  developing  independently ;  and  a  very 
interesting  course  it  was  then  taking.  One  could  have 
wished,  for  the  sake  of  freedom  and  variety,  that  it  had 
been  let  alone  altogether,  so  that  we  might  have  witnessed 
the  profoundly  instrucive  spectacle  of  a  Syrian  Church, 
having  its  discipline  and  doctrine  all  to  itself,  working 
out  its  problems  apart  from  the  admixture  of  Greek 
philosophy  and  Koman  methods  of  government  which 
came  in  so  early  to  modify  primitive  Christianity  and 
translate  it  into  the  amalgam  known  as  Catholicism.  We 
cannot  forget  that  the  gospel  had  its  origin  in  Syria ; 
that  it  was  first  taught  in  Aramaic ;  that  it  began  as  an 
Oriental,  Semitic  faith.  What  should  we  have  seen  if  it 
had  been  allowed  to  develop  at  least  in  one  spot  as 
still  an  Oriental,  Semitic  faith,  without  any  admixture  of 
Western  civilisation  ? 

In  point  of  fact  no  such  independent  development  was 
possible  even  in  very  early  ages.  Before  the  time  of  Palut, 
Greek  influences  had  penetrated  to  Edessa,  for  the  church 
in  this  city  was  in  communication  with  its  brethren  farther 
west.  Tatian's  Harmony  affords  a  proof  of  this  statement, 
and  at  the  same  time  a  clear  indication  of  the  comparative 
separateness  of  the  most  ancient  Syrian  Christianity.  In  his 
Address  to  the  GreeJcs  ^  Tatian  says  that  he  was  "  born  in  the 
land  of  the  Assyrians,"  but  instructed  in  Greek  doctrines  and 
afterwards  in  those  that  he  there  undertakes  to  proclaim. 
Thus,  like  Justin  Martyr,  of  whom  he  was  a  friend  and 
disciple,  Tatian  came  to  Christianity  after  studying  Greek 
philosophy.  His  writings  cannot  be  dated  later  than  about 
A.T).  175.'     Now  his  Address  to  the  Greeks  and  the  titles  of 

'  Chap.  xlii. 

^Lightfoot— A.D.    15.5-170;.   Westcott— A.D.   150-175;    Haniack  — the 
Address  to  the  Greeks,  a.d.  152-153. 


EARLY    SYRIAN    CHRISTIANITY  465 

all  his  ])ooks  are  in  Greek — including  that  of  his  Harmony, 
wliich  ho  calls  Biafcssawn}  There  is  therefore  a  certain 
amount  of  probal)iliiy  that  lie  compiled  this  in  Greek,  out 
of  the  original  Greek  text  of  the  Gospels,  and  then  translated 
it  into  Syriac.  Against  this  conclusion,  however,  is  the 
fact  that  its  text  is  of  the  same  type  as  that  of  the  oldest 
separate  Syriac  versions  of  the  Gospels,^  which  of  course 
could  not  have  been  dependent  on  the  Harmony.  There 
is  then  also  some  probability  that  this  was  made  from  a 
previously  existing  Syriac  version  of  the  Gospels.  But  that 
supposition  is  confronted  with  a  serious  difficulty.  No  such 
version  was  known  at  Edessa,  the  one  centre  of  the  Syriac- 
speaking  Christians,  for  it  seems  certain  that  Tatian's 
Harmony  was  the  only  form  in  which  the  Gospels  were 
first  read  in  the  Church.  Previously  the  Syrian  Christians 
had  been  satisfied  with  preaching  and  oral  traditions 
about  Christ.  It  was  Tatian  who  introduced  the  written 
gospel  record  to  Edessa,  and  he  did  this  in  the  form  of 
a  harmony  of  all  four  Gospels,  as  a  method  which  com- 
mended itself  to  his  own  private  judgment.  Here  was  a 
convenient  way  of  presenting  the  whole  gospel  story  at 
once  instead  of  confusing  people  by  offering  them  four 
parallel  and  more  or  less  divergent  narratives.  Tatian's 
influence  at  Edessa  must  have  been  considerable ;  for  he 
succeeded  in  getting  his  book  read  in  the  church  at  that 
city.  Thus,  while  the  other  churches  were  using  the 
four  Gospels  in  their  services,  the  Edessene  Church  was 
using  Tatian's  Harmony.  Here  was  a  curious  distinction 
bearing  witness  to  the  aloofness  of  the  Christians  of  Meso- 
potamia. 

After  Justin  suffered  martyrdom  at  Eome,  it  would 
appear  that  Tatian  became  his  successor  as  a  teacher 
of  Christianity  in  the  imperial  city.  If  so,  it  is  probable 
that  bis  unorthodox  views  had  not  yet  been  developed,  or 

^  Aiareffffdpcijv,  i.e.  "Harmony" — with  an  allusion  to  the  four  principal 
notes  of  music,  not,  as  was  formerly  supposed,  to  the  four  Gospels  out  of 
which  it  is  constructed.     Cf.  the  word  "  Diapason." 

2  The  Curetonian  and  the  Siuaitic. 

30 


46 G  THE    GREEK   AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

at  all  events  not  detected.^     But  in  the  year  172  he  was 
excommunicated.     Then  he  went  to  live  in  Syria,  not  far 
from  Antioch,  and  later  perhaps  at  his  old  home  Edessa, 
where   he  is  said   to  have   died.      All   we    know   of    his 
"  heresy "  is  associated  with  the  Eoman  period  of  his  life. 
The  omission  of  the  genealogies  of  Jesus  from  his  Harmony 
is  an  indication  that  his  divergence  from  accepted  doctrines 
had  at  least  begun  when  he  compiled  that  work.     Accord- 
ing  to   Iren«u8,2   j^g  ^as   a   leader   of  the   Uncratites,   or 
"  Abstainers,"  people  who  repudiated  marriage,  meat,  and 
wine.      Irenteus  also  associated  him  with  the  Gnostics  as 
inventing  a  doctrine  of  invisible  aeons,  like  the  followers  of 
Valentiuus,  while  in  his  asceticism  he  resembled  Marcion. 
Origen    attributes    to    him    a    doctrine   of    the    demiurge, 
saying  that  he  understood  the  words  "  Let  there  be  light " 
as   a   prayer   of    the  creating  god  of    this   world    to    the 
supreme    God.      These   statements    are   not  supported   by 
evidence,  and  they  are  not  confirmed  by  Tatian's  extant 
writings.      His     omission    of     the     genealogies     from    the 
Diatessaron  may  indicate   his    agreement  with    Marcion's 
Docetism,  but  that  is  all ;  we  have  no  trace  here  or  else- 
where in  his  extant  writings  of  any  nearer  approach  to 
Valentinian   Gnosticism.       It   may    well  be   that,  leaving 
Rome  under  a  cloud,  Tatian  carried  with  him  to  the  East 
some  notions  that  were  unpopular  with  the  ecclesiastical 
authorities  in  the   West.       But   when  he    found   himself 
again    among    his    simple  -  minded   fellow  -  countrymen  in 
distant  Edessa,  he   was   not   suspected   of    heresy,  or    his 
Harmony    would    not    have    been    acceptable   there ;    nor 
is    there    any    reason   to    suppose    that    he    spread    very 
peculiar   ideas   or    founded   a  school  of   heterodox   teach- 
ing.      Certainly  these  Syrian  Christians  did   not   become 
Encratites. 

A  little  later  the  Church  at  Edessa  obtained  a  notable 
convert  in  the  person  of  Bardaisan,  who  was  born  in  the  year 

'  Irenseus  states  that  he  did  not  express  any  of  his  objectionable  yiews 
till  after  .Justin's  martyrdom.  Adv.  Hcer.  i.  28. 
"^  Ibid. 


EARLY    SYRIAN    CHRISTIANITY  467 

154  and  died  in  222.^  He  was  a  man  of  scientific  culture, 
but  his  mixture  of  astrological  notions  led  to  his  expulsion 
from  the  Church,  and  he  has  come  to  be  reckoned  as  one 
of  the  leaders  of  Syrian  Gnosticism.  Unlike  Tatian,  he 
was  not  ascetic.  He  did  not  join  the  Encratites ;  neither 
did  he  agree  with  Marcion  in  rejecting  the  Old  Testament, 
or  assigning  the  creation  of  the  cosmos  to  a  demiurge,  a 
secondary  god.  According  to  the  reports  of  his  teaching, 
for  which  we  are  dependent  on  his  opponents,  his  chief 
characteristic  is  the  immense  importance  he  attached  to 
the  power  of  evil,  which  he  attributed  in  the  first  instance 
to  Satan  and  then  to  the  inherent  malignity  of  matter,  the 
origin  of  which  he  ascribed  to  Satan.  Thus  in  the  act  of 
creation  God  formed  the  world  out  of  pre-existent  matter. 
It  might  be  "  the  best  of  all  possible  worlds,"  but  in  a 
more  limited  sense  than  that  in  which  Leibnitz  used  the 
phrase.  The  architect  of  the  cosmos  could  only  make 
the  best  of  very  objectionable  material.  In  this  way  we 
are  to  account  for  the  imperfections  of  nature  and  the 
evils  of  society.  Here  we  have  a  combination  of  Persian 
and  Greek  conceptions.  The  important  role  assigned  to  a 
spiritual  principle  of  evil  is  Zoroastrian ;  but  the  notion  of 
a  pre-existent  matter  out  of  which  the  Divine  architect 
shapes  the  cosmos  is  Platonic.  Now  all  this  is  more  than 
doubtful.  It  has  been  gathered  together  from  assertions 
and  hints  in  Ephraim  the  Syrian  and  Western  writers, 
some  of  which  are  but  conjecturally  connected  with 
Bardaisan.  So  many  of  the  Fathers  accuse  him  of  Gnos- 
ticism that  it  is  probable  there  is  some  ground  for  their 
statements.  Yet  it  seems  as  though  his  departures  from 
conventional  ideas  have  been  greatly  magnified.  No  trace, 
of  the  Valentinian  aeons  can  be  found  even  in  his  enemies' 
accounts  of  his  tenets.  We  only  possess  one  book  which 
represents  his  views  from  his  own  side,  and  this  contains 
nothing  seriously  unorthodox.      It  is  the  work  commonly 

1  According  to  the  account  of  him  in  Michael  the  Syrian,  who  lived  as 
late  as  the  end  of  the  twelfth  century,  but  who  seems  to  have  had  ancient 
authorities  to  work  upon.     See  Chabot,  Michel  le  Syrien. 


468  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

known  as  the  dialogue  "  On  Fate,"  but  the  actual  title  of 
which  is  The  Book  of  the  Laws  of  Countries.  Dr.  Cureton 
found  and  published  a  Syriac  copy  of  it.  The  book  pur- 
ports to  be  written  by  a  disciple  of  Bardaisan,  but  Mr. 
Burkitt  considers  this  to  be  a  literary  device,  and  holds 
that  Bardaisan  himself  was  its  author.  Be  that  as  it 
may,  this  book  is  our  one  ancient  friendly  account  of 
the  teaching  of  Bardaisan.  The  dialogue  is  a  defence 
of  free  will  against  the  astrological  notion  of  a  fate  de- 
termined by  the  stars.  It  would  seem  to  allow  the 
influence  of  the  stars  in  controlling  physical  phenomena. 
This  notion  is  supported  by  a  far-away  perception  of  our 
modern  scientific  truth  of  the  unity  of  nature  and  the 
interaction  of  all  its  parts.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
argument  goes  to  show  that  in  the  mind  man  possesseb 
freedom ;  that  his  will  is  free ;  and  that  consequently 
his  actions  cannot  be  predicted  by  a  study  of  the  stars. 
Under  the  same  stars  different  men  act  differently.  This 
defence  of  free  will  is  emphatically  anti-Gnostic ;  Gnos- 
ticism, especially  Valentinian  Gnosticism,  being  rigorously 
necessarian. 

Tatian  and  Bardaisan  were  the  two  men  of  brains  in 
the  early  Syrian  Church.  It  is  unfortunate  for  the  history 
of  that  Church  that  they  both  lie  under  suspicions  of 
heresy,  the  one  having  been  condemned  in  the  West,  the 
other  in  his  own  country.  Had  there  been  vigour  of  in- 
tellect enough  at  Edessa  to  have  won  over  Bardaisan  to 
the  views  of  his  fellow- Christians,  or  charity  enough  to  have 
found  room  for  him  in  spite  of  his  peculiarities,  he  would 
have  been  a  brilliant  light  in  the  Church.  He  was  the 
.one  Syrian  who  made  a  serious  attempt  to  lift 

"The  burden  of  the  mystery, 
.  .  .    the  heavy  and  the  weary  weight 
Of  all  this  unintelligible  world." 

But  the  mediaeval  chronicler  from  wliom  we  learn  the  chief 
facts  of  his  career  concludes  with  the  anathema,  "  May  his 
name  be  accursed." 


EARLY    SYRIAN    CHRISTIANITY  469 

After  a  period  of  persecution,  during  which  they  were 
cut  off  from  contact  with  their  brethren  on  the  western  side 
of  the  desert,  the  Syrian  Christians  of  Edessa  came  for  a  time 
under  the  influence  of  the  Greek  Church  at  Antioch.  This 
was  owing  to  the  Eoman  reconquest  of  their  country  and 
temporary  absorption  of  it  into  the  empire  in  the  year  210. 
On  the  restoration  of  communication  with  Antioch  which 
followed,  Serapion,  then  the  bishop  of  that  city,  feeling  some 
concern  for  the  isolation  of  the  Syrians  and  some  fear  lest 
they  should  drift  away  from  the  main  current  of  Catholic 
life,  its  customs  and  its  beliefs,  ordained  them  a  bishop  in 
full  sympathy  with  the  Greek  Church  of  Antioch,  in  the 
person  of  Palut — previously  mentioned  in  connection  with 
the  early  legends — who  proceeded  to  Edessa  and  took  up 
the  succession  of  the  episcopate,  which  seems  to  have  been 
interrupted  by  the  persecution.  His  followers  were  called 
"  Palutians,"  a  significant  fact  which  indicated  a  division 
in  the  Church,  and  points  to  the  fact  that  this  interference 
on  the  part  of  Antioch  was  not  at  first  welcomed  by  the 
Syrians.  But  while  the  followers  of  Bardaisan  necessarily 
stood  aloof,  as  did  the  Marcionites  who  were  also  to  be  found 
in  Mesopotamia  now  or  later,  the  main  body  of  the  Church 
was  soon  reconciled.  The  Palutians,  who  represented  the 
orthodox  Greek  Church  at  Edessa,  came  to  be  fused  with 
the  rest  of  the  Church,  and  thus  the  connection  with 
Antioch  generally  recognised. 

There  is  no  evidence  that  Serapion  had  any  fault  to 
find  with  the  doctrine  taught  in  this  church.  He  disliked 
the  use  of  Tatian's  Harmony  in  the  public  worship,  not 
however  because  he  held  it  to  be  a  heretical  perversion  of 
the  Gospels,  nor  because  it  came  from  the  hand  of  a  heretic, 
but  simply  because  it  was  a  compilation,  and  not  the 
Gospels  in  their  original  form  as  these  were  used  in  other 
churches.  Hitherto  this  was  all  the  people  of  Edessa 
knew  of  the  New  Testament.  They  had  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  Syriac,  probably  the  version  of  the  Old  Testament 
now  contained  in  the  Peshitta,  which  seems  to  have  been 
a   Jewish   translation    made   prior   to    the   founding  of    a 


i70  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Christian  Chuicli  in  Mesopotamia;  and  they  had  the 
Diatessaron.  That  was  their  Bible.  But  now  Palut 
brought  them  a  New  Testament  consisting  of  the  four 
Gospels,  Acts,  and  the  fourteen  epistles  ascribed  to  St. 
Paul,  together  with  a  revised  edition  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Palut's  Syrian  Gospels — possibly  his  own  translation,  as 
Mr.  Burkitt  supposes — appear  to  be  those  known  to  us  in 
the  Curetoniau  and  Siniatic  manuscripts.  They  received 
the  title  of  Evangelion  da  Mepharreshe} 

You  cannot  make  a  horse  drink  by  taking  him  to  the 
water,  nor  can  you  make  a  church  adopt  a  new  version  of 
Scripture  by  introducing  it  to  that  version,  as  we  have  seen 
in  the  case  of  our  Ee vised  Version.  The  Diatessaron  was 
the  old  Church  lesson  book  of  the  Syrians ;  it  contained 
the  gospel  story  on  which  they  had  been  brought  up  from 
their  childhood.  Palut  was  quite  unable  to  induce  them 
to  give  it  up  in  favour  of  the  four  Gospels  that  he  had 
brought  them.  It  continued  to  be  used  in  Edessa  and  the 
other  churches  of  Eastern  Syria  for  more  than  two 
centuries  after  this.  Indeed,  its  popularity  grew,  and  it 
penetrated  farther  north  as  Christianity  slowly  spread  in 
that  direction. 

Palut  was  succeeded  by  'Abshelama,  and  he  by 
Barsamya,  who  sufi'ered  martyrdom  under  Decius  or  Valerian 
(a.d.  250-260).  Edessa  also  suffered  from  the  persecu- 
tions under  Diocletian  and  Licinius,  when  there  were 
at  least  three  martyrs,  Shamona,  Guria,  and  Habbib,  whose 
story  has  been  preserved.  Then  came  peace,  and  for 
a  time  there  is  little  to  record  in  the  obscure  history  of 
the  Syrian  Church.  Three  Syriac  compositions  in  par- 
ticular assigned  to  the  fourth  century  call  for  some  notice. 
These  are  the  Doctritie  of  Addai,  the  Homilies  of  Aphraates, 
and    the    Writings   of  St.    Ephraim;    but   the   last-named 


^  i.e.  "The  gospel  of  the  separate  ones."  See  ^Mikitt,  Evangelion  da 
Mepharreshe.  This  is  much  nearer  to  the  Diatessaron  than  to  the  later 
Peshitta,  and  yet  it  differs  in  some  respects  from  the  former  work,  which 
bears  traces  of  Tatian's  Roman  residence,  in  its  more  or  less  Western  text, 
agreeing  witli  Codex  Bezse  and  the  old  Latin  version. 


EARLY    SYRIAN    CHRISTIANITY  471 

works  are  the  only  Syrian  patristic  writings  that  have 
taken  a  prominent  place  in  ecclesiastical  literature.  The 
Doctrine  of  Addai  contains  the  legend  of  Abgar,  the 
missionary  work  of  Addai,  that  is  to  say,  the  apostle 
Thaddffius,  and  the  labours  of  his  disciple  and  successor, 
the  martyr  Aggai.  Although  it  is  manifestly  apocryphal 
and  unreliable,  it  contains  much  ancient  material ;  but  this 
has  been  worked  over  so  that  in  its  present  form  the  book 
cannot  be  ascribed  to  an  earlier  date  than  the  fourth 
century.  Its  theology  is  post-Nicene.  The  Homilies  of 
Aphraates  are  twenty-two  in  number,  ten  of  which  are 
asssigned  to  the  year  337,  and  twelve  to  the  year  344. 
A  separate  homily.  On  the  Cluster,  is  assigned  to  the  year 
following.  Aphraates,  or  Afrahat,  was  a  monk  and  a 
bishop  said  by  tradition  to  be  the  head  of  the  convent  of 
St.  Matthew  near  Mosul.  The  Homihes  constitute  one 
work  which  is  a  systematic  exposition  of  the  Christian 
faith,  arranged  as  an  acrostic,  each  homily  beginning  with 
one  of  the  twenty-two  letters  of  the  alphabet  in  order. 
The  work,  however,  does  not  consist  of  speculative  theology  ; 
it  deals  chiefly  with  the  relation  of  faith  to  the  Christian 
life  and  to  moral  conduct,  especially  emphasising  the  in- 
dwelling of  the  Spirit  of  Christ  in  men,  who  thus  become 
temples  of  God. 

The  Holy  Spirit  is  referred  to  in  the  feminine  gender,  as 
in  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  and  probably  for  the 
same  reason  ;  while  the  Greek  word  for  Spirit  is  neuter,^  the 
Syriac  is  feminine.^  But  innocent  as  was  the  cause  of  it, 
this  custom  easily  lends  itself  to  the  Gnostic  idea  of  couples. 
Aphraates  holds  firmly  to  the  Divinity  of  Christ ;  but  he 
defends  it  in  a  way  that  shows  how  little  he  is  influenced 
by  contemporary  discussions  among  the  Greek  theologians. 
Following  the  remarkable  argument  of  Christ  in  the  Fourth 
(lospel,^  he  supports  the  doctrine  by  appealing  to  in- 
stances of  the  name  of  Divinity  being  given  to  men.  He 
also   uses   the  argumentum   ad    hominem,   urging    that    it 

'  irvedixa.  2  K^j  '  John  x.  33-36. 


472  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

is  better  to  worship  Jesus  than  to  worship  kings  and 
emperors.  He  adds  that  Christ  has  called  us  sons,  making 
us  His  brothers.  This  is  altogether  aside  from  the 
Homoousian  doctrine ;  it  indicates  a  free  handling  of  the 
problem  untrammelled  by  the  phrases  of  fixed  creeds  or 
the  pronouncements  of  authoritative  counsels.  And  yet,  as 
Mr.  Burkitt  points  out,  "  on  the  one  hand,  he  was  wholly 
penetrated  Ijy  the  Monotheism  of  the  Catholic  religion ; 
on  the  other,  his  loyalty  and  devotion  to  his  Lord  assured 
him  that  no  title  or  homage  was  too  exalted  for  Christians 
to  .give  to  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  they  had  union 
with  the  Divine  nature."^  Nevertheless  there  is  one 
point  at  which  Aphraates  is  not  only  freer  and  therefore 
fresher  than  the  standard  orthodoxy  of  the  Greeks,  but 
glaringly  at  variance  with  Catholic  usage  and  doctrine. 
This  is  in  his  treatment  of  marriage  in  relation  to  baptism. 
He  will  only  allow  celibates  to  be  baptised.  He  does 
not  regard  marriage  as  a  sacrament,  nor  does  it  appear 
that  he  permits  any  religious  sanction  for  it.  Thus  with 
Aphraates,  only  virgins,  widows,  and  widowers,  or  husbands 
and  wives  who  have  separated  from  one  another,  may  be 
admitted  to  the  full  privilege  of  the  Church,  since  only 
the  baptised  are  allowed  to  come  to  the  communion. 
Married  people  then  must  remain  in  the  outer  court  of 
the  catechumens,  as  mere  "  adherents."  He  has  two 
grades  of  Christians ;  but  only  the  upper  grade  is  really 
in  the  Church.  This  is  just  like  the  position  taken  up  by 
the  Marcionites,  and  later  that  of  the  Manichteans.  Mr. 
Burkitt  even  puts  forth  the  startling  theory  that  at  this 
time  it  was  held  by  the  Church  of  Edessa  as  a  whole. 
But  we  know  too  little  about  that  church  to  take  its 
silence  as  an  evidence  of  its  agreement  with  Aphraates. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  silence  of  Antioch  on  the  subject 
affords  a  powerful  argument  against  the  hypothesis.  Surely 
the  Edessene  Christians  would  have  been  denounced  in  no 

^  Burkitt,  Early  Euslern  Christianily,  to  which  book,  and  also  its  author's 
Bva':'{i''liooi  da  Mepharreshe,  this  sketch  of  sarlier  Syrian  literature  is  largely- 
indebted. 


EARLY   SYRIAN    CHRISTIANITY.  473 

measured  terms  by  the  orthodox  Greeks  if  they  had  agreed 
with  the  Marcionites  in  this  matter. 

The  last  and  by  far  the  best  known  of  these  Syrian 
writers  is  St.  Ephraim,  commonly  called  "  Ephraim  the 
Syrian."  He  was  a  child  of  Christian  parents,^  born  about 
the  year  308  in  Mesopotamia,  probably  at  Nisibis.  He 
died  at  Edessa  in  the  year  373.  All  sorts  of  marvels  are 
attributed  to  him  in  his  youth,  and  he  is  credited  by  his  bio- 
grapher with  singular  precocity.  There  is  no  doubt  that  he 
was  drawn  by  the  fame  of  St.  Basil  to  visit  that  great  man 
at  Caesarea,  by  whom  he  was  powerfully  influenced.  The 
rumour  of  an  invasion  of  heresy  at  Edessa  sent  him  back 
to  his  native  land,  where  he  became  a  champion  of  the 
orthodox  faith,  but  living  as  an  anchorite  in  his  cell. 
Ephraim's  name  has  obtained  prominence  in  Church  history 
somewhat  disproportionate  to  his  ability  and  achievements. 
Perhaps  this  is  partly  due  to  the  fact  that  his  works  have 
been  preserved  and  that  they  bulk  largely  in  theological 
libraries.  Still,  as  a  commentator  he  shows  real  wisdom, 
coming  between  the  literalism  of  Antioch  and  the  allegorising 
of  Alexandria,  in  endeavouring  to  bring  out  the  true 
spiritual  significance  of  Scripture.  But  he  was  more 
popular  in  his  own  day  as  a  hymn-writer — why,  it  is  difficult 
to  say,  since  his  hymns  are  obscure,  allusive,  prolix,  and 
dreary.  He  threw  his  doctrinal  teaching  into  the  form  of 
verse,  and  taught  choirs  to  chant  orthodoxy,  as  Arius  had 
taught  his  followers  to  chant  heresy.  His  Carmina  Nisihena 
have  a  more  mundane  character,  for  they  treat  of  the 
struggle  between  Sapor  and  the  Romans  for  the  possession  of 
Nisibis.  The  work  of  Ephraim  best  known  in  subsequent 
times  is  his  Sermo  de  Domino,  a  treatise  on  the  Incarnation, 
in  which  he  teaches  that  the  taking  of  manhood  into  God 
was  in  order  that  men  might  receive  the  Divine  nature. 
Thus  he  accepts  the  thoroughly  Greek  notion  of  salvation 

^  This  is  what  he  says  himself,  and  it  must  be  accepted  in  opposition  to 
the  assertion  of  his  Acta,  that  his  father  was  a  priest  at  a  heathen  idol 
temple.  See  0pp.  Syr.  ii,  499,  cited  in  Smith's  Diet,  of  Chr.  Biog.  vol.  ii. 
p,  137a. 


474  THE    OREEK    AND    EASTERN  CHURCHES 

by  the  Incarnation.  At  the  same  time  he  agrees  with 
the  mystical  idea  of  salvation  resulting  from  union  with 
Christ  as  consisting  in  the  redeemed  man  becoming  a 
dwelling-place  for  God.  He  holds  a  peculiar  doctrine  of 
the  Charismata,  according  to  which  the  privileges  of  Israel 
are  gathered  up  in  Christ  and  then  distributed  by  Him, 
80  that  the  ancient  grace  of  the  priesthood  is  thus  trans- 
mitted to  the  Christian  Church. 

A  curious  Syrian  work  of  an  entirely  different  character 
written  about  this  time  is  the  Acts  of  Judas  Thomas} 
which  tells  how  the  apostle  went  to  India  and  built  a 
palace  for  the  king  in  heaven.  This  is  a  popular  religious 
story,  which  Dr.  Kendel  Harris  has  shown  to  be  blended 
with  the  classic  myth  of  the  Dioscuri.  The  strange  notion 
underlying  this  story  is  that  Judas,  "  not  Iscariot,"  but 
the  other  apostle  Judas,  who  is  named  "  Thomas,"  a  word 
which  means  "  twin,"  ^  was  the  twin-brother  of  Jesus.^ 
The  book  has  been  regarded  as  heretical ;  and  it  agrees  with 
Aphraates  in  requiring  celibacy  in  the  baptised.  Evidently, 
then,  there  was  a  strong  tendency  in  that  direction  at 
Edessa,  although  it  cannot  be  proved  that  this  entirely 
dominated  the  Church  in  that  city  even  during  its  free 
and  independent  age.  The  novel  contains  some  mystical 
elements  in  the  prayers  attributed  to  St.  Thomas,  indicating 
that  like  Aphraates  its  author  was  not  fettered  by  the 
phraseology  of  Catholic  orthodoxy,  simply  because  he  was 
a  member  of  a  church  that  was  developing  on  its 
own  lines  without  interference  from  the  main  body  of 
Christendom. 

With  the  Acts  of  Thomas  is  associated  a  Syrian 
Christian  poem  known  as  the  Hymn  of  the  Soul,  originally 
a  separate  composition  but  now  incorporated  in  the  story. 
It  is  not  really  a  hymn  at  ail,  but  an  allegory  in  verse 
telling  of  the  adventures  of  the  soul  which  has  come  from 

'  Wright's  Apocryphal  Acts,  pj).  159-165. 

-  0w/ias  =  Dixn.     So  we  read  three  times  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,   Gw/iSs 
6  Xf/dfievos  ALdvfios,  John  xi.  16,  xx.  24,  xxi.  2. 

*  See  Rendel  Harris,  The  Dioscuri  in  the  Christian  Legends. 


EARLY    SYRIAN    CHRISTIANITY  475 

its  heavenly  home  to  earth  and  is  peifo lining  tasks  assigned 
to  it  as  the  way  for  its  return.  This  idea  is  worked  out 
in  the  form  of  the  pilgrimage  of  a  prince  to  Egypt  in  quest 
of  the  serpent-guarded  pearl. 

Thus  far,  then,  we  have  seen  the  Syrian  Church  at 
Edessa  going  its  own  way  and  working  out  its  own  ideas 
of  Christian  truth  and  life,  no  doubt  with  the  "  mediocrity  " 
of  abiUty  which,  as  Kenan  says,  characterises  everything 
Syriac,  and  certainly  without  producing  any  really  great 
men,  but  still  with  a  certain  freedom,  originality,  and  variety 
that  interest  us  in  contrast  with  the  growing  uniformity 
of  Catholic  standards  in  the  main  body  of  the  Church. 
Early  in  the  fourth  century  this  isolation  was  disturbed, 
and  for  the  second  time  the  Eastern  Syrian  Church  was 
brought  more  into  line  with  the  orthodox  Greek  Church 
at  Antioch.  This  was  the  work  of  the  great  ecclesiastic 
Kabbulas,  a  native  of  Chalcis  {Quinnesrin,  i.e.,  "  Eagle's 
Nest ")  in  Syria,  who  had  a  heathen  priest  for  his  father 
but  a  Christian  mother.  Having  come  to  personal 
decision  for  his  mother's  religion,  he  went  to  Jerusalem 
and  then  down  to  the  Jordan  to  be  baptised.  On  his 
return  he  renounced  his  wife  and  his  property,  sent  his 
children  to  convent  schools,  and  went  first  to  the  monastery 
of  St.  Abraham  at  Chalcis,  and,  since  that  was  not  severe 
enough  for  him,  afterwards  to  a  cave  in  the  desert,  where 
he  lived  the  life  of  a  hermit.  Thus  he  won  fame  in  the 
Church,  and  in  the  year  4 1 1  he  had  his  reward.  He  was 
then  appointed  bishop  of  Edessa  by  a  synod  at  Antioch. 
Eabbulas  proved  to  be  an  energetic  disciplinarian,  especially 
aiming  at  correcting  the  irregularities,  that  is  to  say,  the 
national  or  local  peculiarities,  of  his  diocese,  by  bringing  his 
flock  into  line  with  the  Greek-speaking  Church.  With 
this  end  in  view  he  made  a  dead  set  against  the  Diatessaron, 
ordering  it  to  be  removed  from  all  the  churches,  and 
commanding  the  four  separate  Gospels  to  be  substituted  for 
it.  But  he  did  not  circulate  the  old  Syriac  gospels  of 
Palut ;  his  gospels  were  in  a  text  more  nearly  agreeing 
with  the  Syrian  Greek  text  used  at  Antioch  in  his  day. 


476  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHCRCHES 

Tliis  was  the  text  of  the  PcsJiitta,  whicli  does  not  appear 
in  earlier  Syrian  wii tings,  but  wliich  lieuceforth  becomes 
the  text  of  Syrian  Christian  literature.  It  is  reasonable, 
therefore,  to  infer  that  it  was  Rabbulas  who  introduced 
the  Peshitta  New  Testament,  which  was  to  be  used 
as  the  recognised  version  of  the  Church,  as  the  Syrian 
"  Vulo-ate." 


CHAPTER   II 

THE  SYRIAN  NESTORIANS 

Zachariali  of  Mitylene,  Chronicle  (Eng.  trans,  in  "  Byzantine  Texts," 
1899) ;  Assenian,  Biblioth.  Oriental,  tome  iv.  ;  Gibbon,  Decline 
and  Fall,  chap,  xlvii.  ;  Badger,  Nestorians  and  their  Ritual,  1862  ; 
The  Book  of  Governors  ;  The  Historia  Monastica  of  Thomas,  bishop 
of  Marga,  a.d.  840,  edited  from  Syrian  manuscripts,  etc.,  by 
G.  Wallis  Budge,  1893  ;  Etheridge,  Syrian  Churches,  1846 ; 
Noldeke    Geschichte  der  Per  sen. 

The  rise  and  progress  of  the  Nestorians  offers  us  one  of 
the  greatest  sui'prises  in  history.  By  condemning  them  as 
heretics  the  council  of  Ephesus  (a.d.  431)  unwittingly  gave 
them  their  opportunity.  Church  councils  have  succeeded 
in  crushing  movements  which  had  not  obtained  much 
popular  support.  But  no  decree  of  a  council  has  ever 
destroyed  a  powerful  heresy.  The  great  days  of  Arianism 
came  after  it  had  been  anathematised  by  the  Nicene  Council. 
The  case  of  Nestorianism  is  even  more  significant.  The 
triumph  of  the  Arians  was  due  to  imperial  patronage ;  but 
the  Nestorians  were  not  favoured  with  that  encouragement. 
Cast  out  of  the  empire,  they  brought  fresh  life  to  the  Syrian 
Church  beyond  its  borders,  and  stimulated  an  enthusiastic 
missionary  movement  which  rapidly  spread  eastward  like  a 
prairie  fire,  covering  wide  areas  of  Central  Asia. 

Cyril  of  Alexandria  had  snatched  a  victory  at  Ephesus 
by  a  stroke  of  smart  tactics ;  ^  but  he  was  too  astute  a 
politician  to  deceive  himself  with  the  supposition  that  this 
had  ended  his  difficulties.  Having  secured  the  condemna- 
tion of  Nestorius,  he  was  not  unwilling  to  conciliate   the 

1  See  p.  96. 
477 


478  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

arch-heretic's  friends  and  supporters,  the  most  important  of 
whom  was  John,  the  patriarch  of  Antioch,  whom  he  had 
affronted  by  hurrying  through  the  council's  discussions 
before  the  arrival  of  that  important  personage.  But  the 
negotiations  began  on  the  Nestorian  side  under  the  influence 
of  an  august  power  to  which  all  parties  paid  deference. 
The  emperor  interfered  as  peacemaker,  and  at  his  com- 
mand Paul  of  Emesa,  who  had  belonged  hitherto  to  the 
Nestorian  party,  visited  Cyril  at  Alexandria  (a.d.  432), 
and  explained  the  Syrian  view  in  such  a  way  as  to  allow 
of  the  uniting  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ  while  each 
retained  its  individuality  pure  and  unmixed.  A  compact 
was  now  made,  according  to  which  Cyril  assented  to  this 
statement,  while  John  and  his  party  were  to  acquiesce  in 
the  condemnation  of  Nestorius — the  Jonah  cast  out  to  end 
the  storm.  His  disciples  were  called  Simonians,  his  books 
burned,  and  the  heretic  himself  driven  away  first  to  Petra, 
then  to  the  Fayum  oasis. 

After  this  the  centre  of  Nestorianism  passes  over  to 

Edessa.      Ibas,  a  presbyter  in  that  church,  and  according 

to  some  accoimts  the  head  of  the  theological  school,  now 

an  important  seat  of  learning,  had  been  present  at  the 

council  of  Epbesus  as  a  supporter  of  Nestorius.      Eabbulas, 

his  bishop,  had  also  been  there,  and  at  first  friendly  to  the 

Nestorian  position ;    but  he   had   subsequently  gone   over 

decidedly    to    the  other    side.       In    making   this   change, 

however,  he  did  not  carry  his  people  with  him,  and  Ibas,  as 

leader   of   the  Nestorian   party  at  Edessa,  had  the   great 

majority   of  the   church   with   him.       Ibas   then  wrote   a 

letter,  of  which  much  was  made  later,  to  Maris,  then  or 

later  bishop  of  Hardaschir  in  Persia,  in  which  he  gave  a 

graphic  account  of  the  council  of  Ephesus  and  also  defined 

his  position — on  the  one  hand  condemning  Nestorius  for 

approaching  the  Unitarianism  of  Paul  of  Samosata,  and  on 

the  other  hand  condemning  Cyril  for  Apollinarianism  ;  both 

inaccurate  charges.      Eabbulas  died  in  the   year  435    (or 

436),  and  Ibas  was  then  carried  to  the  bishopric  by  the 

voice   of  the   popular  party  which  he    represented.      The 


THE   SYRIAN    NESTORIANS  479 

case  was  now  serious,  for  although  he  had  repudiated 
Nestorius,  the  newly  appointed  bishop  of  Edessa  was  the 
leading  living  supporter  of  essential  Nestorianism.  He 
had  translated  the  works  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  the 
real  author  of  the  heresy.  Thus  that  system  came  to  have 
its  headquarters  at  Edessa  under  the  patronage  of  the  chief 
ecclesiastic  of  the  Eastern  Syrian  Church.  Four  disaffected 
presbyters  now  headed  a  party  in  opposition,  and  compelled 
Domnus,  who  had  succeeded  his  uncle  John  in  the  patri- 
archate of  Antioch,  and  was  friendly  to  Ibas,  reluctantly 
to  summon  a  synod  for  hearing  the  charges  against  him. 
Some  of  them  were  trivial,  as  that  he  used  inferior  wine  at 
the  Eucharist,  but  among  them  was  the  grave  accusation  of 
Nestorianism.  However,  nothing  was  decided,  and  the  case 
was  postponed.  The  presbyters  then  resorted  to  Constanti- 
nople and  appealed  to  the  emperor,  who  ordered  a  trial  by 
an  imperial  commission  of  bishops  at  Tyre — of  course  quite 
contrary  to  ecclesiastical  rules  and  rights.  These  com- 
missioners endeavoured  to  effect  a  reconcihation.  But 
the  peace  they  secured  on  the  spot  did  not  last.  The 
Eutychian  party  was  now  rising  in  power.  When  Ibas 
returned  home  he  found  the  minds  of  his  flock  poisoned 
with  adverse  notions.  Under  orders  from  Constantinople, 
Chaereas,  the  civil  governor  of  Osrhoene,  arrested  him  on 
the  charges  the  presbyters  had  urged  against  him.  Monks 
and  nuns  of  the  opposing  party  joined  in  the  hue  and  cry, 
eager  to  hound  him  to  death.  He  was  a  "  second  Judas  " ; 
an  "  enemy  of  Christ "  ;  an  "  offshoot  of  Pharaoh."  "  To 
the  fire  with  him  and  all  his  race ! "  they  cried.  Ibas 
was  removed  by  the  emperor's  soldiers,  but  as  only  a 
synod  could  depose  him,  this  was  subsequently  done  by 
"  the  robber  council "  at  Ephesus,  where  he  was  again  de- 
nounced by  the  fierce  monks  as  a  "  second  Judas "  and 
"  veritable  Satan."  Subsequently,  at  the  council  of  Chal- 
cedon  (a.d.  451),  under  the  new  emperor,  Marcian,  he 
was  pardoned  on  condition  that  he  anathematised  both 
Nestorius  and  Eutyches,  and  accepted  the  Tome  of  Leo, 
Nevertheless  he  had  not  changed  his  views,  and  his  people 


480  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

knew  it.     To  this  day  he  is  anathematised  as  a  Nestorian 
by  the  Jacobites  in  their  profession  of  faith. 

Meanwhile   the    Nestorian    movement    was    spreading 
farther  north  and  east.     Eabbulas  had  expelled  a  scholar 
Barsumas,  who  was  connected  with  the  theological  school 
at  Edessa,  and  who  then  went  to  Nisibis  in  Persian  territory, 
where  he  became  bishop  (a.d.  435).     There  he  established 
a  theological   school   which   was   essentially   Nestorian  in 
character.      The  original  Syrian  school  at  the  capital  was 
never  purged  of  Nestorianism.     Thus  there  were  now  two 
seats   of   learning  from  which  the  obnoxious  tenets  were 
disseminated,  till  the  Edessa  school  was  finally  suppressed 
by  the  emperor  in  the  year  489  on  account  of  its  heresy. 
Like  the  Huguenots  after  the  revocation  of  the  edict  of 
Nantes,  who  brought  the  silk  trade  to  England,  like  the 
Pilgrim  Fathers  who  carried  the  best  of  Puritan  energy 
out  of  England  to  found  a  new  world,  the  Nestorians  came 
to  Mesopotamia  with  the  arts  and  crafts  of  life.     Carpenters, 
smiths,  weavers,  the  best  of  the  artisan  class,  they  came  to 
start  industries  and  lay  the  foundations  of  manufacturing 
prosperity  in  the  land  of  their  adoption.      Then  the  expul- 
sion of  Nestorians  from  the  great  school  at  Edessa — "  the 
Athens  of  Syria,"  as  Gibbon  calls  it — led  to  the  propaga- 
tion of  their  teaching  in  the  remote  regions  of  their  travels. 
They  did  not  go   merely  as   exiles.      As  in  the  story  of 
the  Jerusalem  Christians  driven  from  their  homes  by  the 
persecution  of  Herod,  their  very  troubles  converted  them 
into  missionaries.    At  home  they  were  denounced  as  heretics  ; 
abroad,  where  no  rumours  of  miserable  doctrinal  disputes 
were  heard,  they  simply  journeyed  as  enthusiastic  mission- 
aries of  the  gospel.     And  they  were  wonderfully  successful, 
winning    converts    in    one    district  after  another  as  they 
penetrated  further  and  yet  further  into  the  unknown  lands 
of  Asia. 

In  the  first  place  this  influx  of  Nestorians  gave  a  great 
impulse  to  Christianity  in  Persia.  Two  influences  combined 
to  make  that  successful.  The  mere  increase  in  numbers, 
the  infusion  of  fresh  blood,  and  the  zeal  and  devotion  of 


THE    SYRIAN    NESTORIANS  481 

men  who  were  exiles  for  their  faith,  stimulated  the  churches 
which  they  found  beyond  the  Euphrates  into  vigour,  and 
led  to  the  planting  of  new  churches.  Then,  further, 
their  advent  changed  the  policy  of  the  Persian  government 
towards  the  Christians.  In  former  times  this  had  been 
adverse,  sometimes  to  the  extent  of  carrying  on  devastating 
persecutions.^  The  Magi  had  roused  opposition  to  the 
Christians  on  religious  grounds,  in  the  interest  of  Zoro- 
astrianism,  and  the  kings  had  been  ready  to  resort  to 
violence  because  they  had  regarded  the  Church  in  Persia  as 
an  ally  of  their  standing  enemy  the  Eoman  Empire.  But 
now  the  case  was  different.  It  is  true  that  at  first  the  re- 
newed vigour  of  Persian  Christianity  produced  by  the  advent 
of  the  Nestorians  provoked  a  fresh  outbreak  of  persecution 
under  King  Firuz  or  Peroz  (a.d.  465).  But  since  it  was 
directed  against  the  Cathohcs  it  went  on  the  old  lines  of 
oppressing  the  clients  and  suspected  allies  of  the  orthodox 
Byzantine  Church,  which  was  closely  associated  with  the 
Byzantine  government.  Before  long,  however,  the  original 
Christians  joined  hands  with  the  Nestorians,  and  the  new- 
comers, fusing  themselves  into  the  ancient  Church,  effectually 
leavened  it  with  their  doctrine,  so  that  the  Persian  Church 
became  Nestorian.  By  yielding  so  completely  to  the  influ- 
ence of  the  immigrants,  the  Christians  of  Persia  came  under 
the  ecclesiastical  ban  of  excommunication  which  had  been 
pronounced  by  the  CathoHc  Church  at  Ephesus  and  reiterated 
at  Chalcedon.  They  were  all  heretics  out  of  communion 
with  Eome,  and  also  with  Constantinople,  Antioch,  and 
Alexandria.  Accordingly  they  ceased  altogether  to  be  in 
any  way  politically  dangerous  to  Persia  as  friends  knd  allies 
of  the  empire.  On  the  contrary,  the  Persian  government 
and  the  Nestorian  Church  saw  a  common  enemy  in  the 
Byzantine  Empire.  It  was  to  their  interest  to  draw 
together  in  mutual  self-defence  against  attacks  from  the 
dreaded  foe.  The  Magian  opposition,  which  rested  on 
other  grounds,  would  not  be  affected  by  this  change  in 
the   political   kaleidoscope.      But    a    spirit   of    conciliation 

1  See  p.  299. 

31 


482  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

leading  to  mutual  coucessions  softened  the  antagonism  here 
also.  Perhaps  under  the  influence  of  Zoroastrianism, 
which  recognised  only  good  in  nature  and  considered  the 
source  of  evil  to  be  a  spiritual  power,  the  Nestorians 
abandoned  the  rigour  of  Catholic  asceticism.  At  a  synod 
held  in  the  year  499,  presided  over  by  Babaeus,  the 
metropolitan  of  Seleucia  and  Ctesiphon,  they  abolished 
all  clerical  celibacy,  even  permitting  bishops  to  marry.  It 
was  reported  of  them  by  the  orthodox  as  a  great  scandal 
that  some  of  them  married  repeatedly.  Second  marriages 
were  always  looked  upon  with  disfavour  in  the  orthodox 
Church ;  though  permitted  to  the  laity,  they  were  absolutely 
forbidden  to  the  clergy.  In  the  Greek  Church  the 
bishops  were  celibate,  while  the  parish  popes  were  required 
to  be  married,  but  only  once.  But  now  among  the 
Nestorians  not  only  were  the  bishops  permitted  to  marry, 
but  if  they  lost  a  first  wife,  to  marry  again,  and  thus  to 
have  a  licence  in  the  matter  not  even  permitted  to  the 
lower  clergy  in  the  main  body  of  the  Eastern  Church.  The 
situation  was  regarded  with  professional  horror  among  the 
orthodox  bishops.  The  arrangement  seems  to  have  worked 
well  in  the  Persian  Church,  for  that  Church  continued  to 
flourish  and  expand.  It  was  virtually  identical  with  the 
Syrian  Church  at  Edessa,  although  not  always  under  the  same 
civil  government.  Now  we  saw  that  Aphraates  advocated 
celibacy  as  a  condition  of  baptism.^  How  far  this  view 
had  been  adopted  by  the  main  body  of  the  Eastern  Syrian 
Christians  cannot  be  determined  from  the  scanty  informa- 
tion at  our  disposal.  But  at  all  events  it  seems  clear  that 
a  great  change  must  have  come  over  that  church  when 
under  Nestorian  influences  for  it  to  have  acquiesced  in,  and 
apparently  adopted,  the  daring  innovation  of  the  complete 
aboUtion  not  only  of  baptismal  celibacy,  but  even  of  clerical 
celibacy.2  This  liberty  has  since  been  abolished  in  the 
Nestorian  Church,  which  has  assimilated  its  custom  to 
that  of  the  Greek  Church,  in  requiring  its  bishops  to  be 

^  See  p.  472. 

^  See  Lea,  Clerical  Velibacy,  vol.  i.  pp.  98,  99. 


THE    SYRIAN   NESTOEIANS  483 

without  wives.  The  precise  time  when  marriage  was 
prohibited  to  the  higher  clergy  has  not  been  ascertained. 
The  cathoHcos  Mar  Abd  Yeshua,  writing  in  the  seventh 
century,  has  a  chapter  on  marriage  and  virginity,  in  which 
no  restriction  is  assigned  to  clerical  marriage.  A  work 
called  Bebhoreetha,  by  SchMmon,  the  metropolitan  of  Bosra, 
refers  to  several  wives  of  patriarchs.  Another  work  states 
that  the  metropolitan  of  Nisibis  about  the  twelfth  century, 
himself  a  married  man,  convened  a  synod  which  decreed 
that  bishops  should  be  allowed  to  marry.^  This  shows  that 
there  were  opponents  of  episcopal  marriage  in  the  Syrian 
Church  at  that  time,  although  they  proved  only  to  be  a 
minority  who  could  be  thwarted  by  a  synod. 

The  Nestorian  Church  in  Eastern  Syria  and  Persia 
was  organised  under  an  archbishop  usually  known  as  the 
catholicos ;  and  in  the  year  498  the  catholicos  assumed 
the  title  of  "  Patriarch  of  the  East."  He  was  fully  justified 
in  wearing  this  proud  title.  As  a  Nestorian  heretic  he  was 
entirely  free  from  the  patriarchate  of  Antioch,  which  from 
time  to  time  had  claimed  to  exercise  jurisdiction  over 
Mesopotamia,  but  which  had  now  cut  off  and  anathematised 
all  his  Church.  On  the  other  hand,  the  wide  and  con- 
tinuous extension  of  Christianity  in  the  Far  East  as  a 
result  of  the  labours  of  the  Nestorian  missionaries  was 
giving  him  an  immense  extent  of  patriarchal  territory,  for 
all  the  converts  in  the  new  districts  were  taught  to  look 
to  the  catholicos  as  their  ecclesiastical  head.  The  seat  of 
the  patriarchate  was  at  the  twin-cities  of  Seleucia  and 
Ctesiphon,  one  of  which  was  on  the  western  and  the  other 
on  the  eastern  bank  of  the  Tigris.  These  cities  together 
formed  the  centre  of  trade  and  travel  between  Europe  and 
Western  Asia  on  one  side,  and  India  and  China  on  the 
other.  Caravans  with  Oriental  products  destined  to  minister 
to  the  luxury  of  more  prosperous  nations,  came  back  from 
visits  to  the  industrious  populations  of  those  mysterious 
distant  empires  of  which  as  yet  Europe  knew  little,  and 
displayed  their  wares  in  the  bazaars  of  this  great  emporium. 
1  Badger,  vol.  ii.  pp.  180,  181. 


484  THE    GREEK.  AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

It  was  a  magnificent  centre  for  the  missionary  Churcli  that 
was  now  beginning  to  enter  on  its  great  task  of  carrying 
the  gospel  to  the  Far  East. 

At  first  the  reinvigorated  Syrian  Christians  repudiated 
the  name  Nestorian.  This  was  not  because  they  were 
unwilling  to  accept  the  doctrines  taught  by  Nestorius,  but 
simply  because  they  had  no  connection  with  the  deposed 
patriarch  of  Alexandria.  They  had  learnt  the  scheme  of 
Christology  with  which  his  name  was  associated  more  fi'om 
the  writings  of  Theodore,  its  real  founder  and  Nestorius's 
teacher,  and  from  others  of  the  same  school.  But  they 
were  not  willing  to  have  their  position  represented  even  in 
this  way.  They  did  not  regard  themselves  as  persons  won 
over  to  a  new  doctrine.  They  maintained  that  the  ideas 
now  anathematised  by  the  Greek  Church  were  genuine, 
original  Christian  truths.  Accordingly  the  catholicos 
Ebed-Jesu  declared  that  it  might  rather  be  said  that 
Nestorius  followed  them  than  that  they  were  led  by  him.^ 

We  must  not  suppose  that  the  Nestorian  tide  of 
immigration  entirely  swept  away  the  ascetic  ideal,  which 
had  been  so  very  marked  as  to  be  almost  Marcionite  in 
some  quarters,  at  all  events  during  the  earlier  days  of  the 
Church  of  Edessa.  We  have  a  remarkable  testimony  to 
the  contrary  in  the  chronicle  of  a  Nestorian  monk  now 
available  for  the  English  reader.  This  is  the  Booh  of 
Governors,  written  by  Thomas,  bishop  of  Marga,  and  dated 
in  the  year  840,  which  Dr.  Wallis  Budge  has  edited  in  the 
Syriac,  translated  into  English,  and  published.  Thomas  has 
here  done  for  the  Syrian  monks  what  Palladius  did  for  the 
Egyptian  monks.  His  work  is  worthy  of  a  place  by  the 
side  of  the  Paradise  ^  for  its  first-hand  account  of  ancient 

^  Etheridge,  The  Syrian  Churches,  p.  72.  Etheridge  states  that  even 
to-day  they  ohject  to  the  title  "  Nestorian."  But  Badger  cites  instances  of 
the  use  of  it  in  more  modern  times.  For  example,  in  the  year  1609  Mar  Abd 
Yeshua  drew  up  "  the  orthodox  creed  of  the  Nestorians,"  stating  that  he  did 
so  "  in  the  blessed  city  of  Khlat  in  the  church  of  the  blessed  Nestorians" 
{The  Nestorians  and  their  Ritual,  vol.  i.  p.  178).  Layard  states  that  the 
name  was  tirst  given  by  the  Roman  Catholic  missionaries  (Nineveh  and  its 
Remains,  vol.  i.  p.  259) ;  but  Badger  shows  that  it  had  been  used  earlier. 

2  See  p.  153. 


THE    SYRIAN    NESTORIANS  4.95 

monasticisni.  Tt  gives  us  valuiiblc  iiifonnntidii  ab-ml  an 
important  part  of  the  Nestmian  ('liurcli  at  the  most  obscure 
period  of  its  liistory.  In  reading  tlie  Itook  we  are  biought 
right  back  into  tlie  atmosphere  of  tliis  old  Syrian  monas- 
ticisni, and  are  able  to  see  the  real,  human,  distinctive  fitrures 
of  a  large  number  of  its  representative  men,  and  to  examine 
the  manners  and  customs  of  their  communities  with  nmch 
detail.^ 

Syrian  monasticism  originated  in  Egyptian  monasticisni 
— the  scene  and  centre  of  the  earliest  ascetic  life  in  tlie 
Church.  It  appears  to  have  begun  with  Awgin,  who 
sprang  from  an  Egyptian  family  residing  on  an  island  near 
the  spot  where  Suez  now  stands,  and  who  was  originally  a 
pearl  fisher.  This  man  became  a  disciple  of  Pachomius. 
He  sul)sequently  settled  at  Nisibis,  and  there  gathered 
about  him  a  number  of  ascetics.      The  date  of  his  death  is 

'  The  first  question  that  rises  on  the  perusal  of  such  a  book — so  new  to 
most  English-speaking  students  of  Church  history — is  that  of  its  genuineness 
and  freedom  from  interpolations.  It  abounds  in  miracles  ;  but  that  was 
only  to  be  expected.  No  monkish  chronicle  of  the  ninth  century  could 
have  been  free  from  miracle,  and  any  non-miraculous  chronicle  of  this 
period  would  be  ipsofado  spurious.  It  is  somewhat  disconcerting,  however 
to  find  that  the  four  MSS.  out  of  which  Dr.  Budge  has  constructed  his 
text  are  all  modern.  These  MSS.  are  (a)  British  Museum,  Oriental,  2,316, 
probably  written  in  the  early  ])art  of  the  seventeenth  century  ;  {b  and  c) 
MS.  in  Dr.  Budge's  possession,  both  written  in  1888  ;  {d)  Vat.,  in  the 
Vatican  library,  No.  clxv.,  written  a.d.  1663.  We  see  then  that  of  the 
four  MSS.  on  which  Dr.  Budge  relies,  the  two  oldest  were  written  in 
the  seventeenth  century,  and  the  other  two  in  the  year  1888.  Dr.  Budge 
does  not  indicate  in  any  way  the  sources  of  the  latter,  though  surely  it 
should  be  possible  to  discover  what  these  were.  In  addition,  he  mentions 
three  other  MSS.,  now  in  Europe,  which  he  does  not  date  and  which 
apparently  he  has  not  collated.  Dr.  Budge  is  satisfied  that  the  text  has 
not  been  tampered  with,  because  his  four  MSS.  agree — except  for  ordinary 
various  readings.  But  that  fact  is  no  proof  that  they  might  not  all  be 
derived  from  a  common  source  which  was  not  sound.  A  better  ground 
of  assurance  in  the  substantial  genuineness  of  the  documents  is  their 
internal  characteristics.  (1)  The  narrative  fits  into  the  circumstances  of  the 
times.  (2)  The  writer  does  not  hesitate  to  record  what  is  discreditable  to 
his  monks— a  point  in  favour  of  an  early  date.  A  later  Syrian  writer  would 
be  likely  to  suppress  discreditable  incidents.  On  the  whole,  therefore, 
probably  we  may  accept  this  book  as  Thomas's  genuine  record.  If  anybody 
would  take  the  trouble  to  apply  the  principles  of  the  Higher  Criticism 
to  it,  he  might  lead  us  to  a  more  conclusive  verdict. 


486  THE    GRKEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

given  as  a.d.  363.  The  one  monastery  founded  by  Awgin 
is  credited  with  having  sent  out  no  less  than  seventy-two 
missionaries.  We  may  regard  him  as  the  St.  Columba 
of  Syrian  monasticism. 

Two  other  monasteries  are  known  to  have  been 
instituted  in  Mesopotamia  before  the  end  of  the  fourth 
century.  Therefore  by  the  time  of  Thomas  this  Eastern 
Syrian  monasticism  was  ah-eady  more  tlian  four  hundred 
years  old.  Meanwhile  it  had  been  absorbed  in  the  great 
Nestorian  movement  that  had  taken  over  the  Church  in 
Mesopotamia.  So  Thomas  was  a  Nestorian  and  the 
monks  about  whom  he  wrote  were  Nestorians,  although  it 
would  be  difficult  to  discover  the  fact  from  his  book,  which 
is  far  removed  from  theological  controversies. 

Thomas  tells  us  that  he  came  to  the  monastery  of  Beth 
'Abhe  when  a  young  man,  in  the  year  a.d.  832  ;  and  his 
book  is  concerned  with  the  monks  and  chiefly  the  governors 
of  this  monastery.  It  has  since  disappeared  and  the  exact 
site  of  it  has  not  been  recovered,  though  it  is  known  to 
have  been  situated  somewhere  among  the  mountains  not 
far  from  the  Upper  or  Great  Zab,  on  its  right  bank,  in  a 
bleak  region  where  fruit  trees  could  not  be  cultivated. 
According  to  fThomas,  the  monastery  was  founded  by 
Eabban  Jacob,  originally  a  monk  of  Mount  Izla  (a.d.  595 
or  596);  but  inasmuch  as  this  man  found  some  monks 
there,  we  must  conclude  that  it  was  a  more  ancient  centre 
for  a  group  of  ascetics'  huts  or  caves.  Under  Jacob  and 
liis  successors  it  grew  into  a  very  important  monastery. 
It  would  seem  that  its  inmates  were  men  of  high  social 
position,  and  that  they  cultivated  learning  as  well  as 
asceticism.  Many  of  them  belonged  to  noble  Persian  and 
Arab  families.  The  library  contained  a  large  collection  of 
books,  among  which  was  Thomas's  favourite  work,  the 
Paradise  of  Palladius,  translated  in  the  seventh  century 
by  Anan  Isho,  a  monk  of  the  great  monastery  of  Izla,  near 
Nisibis,  who  had  made  a  pilgrimage  to  the  Scetic  desert, 
the  home  of  ancient  asceticism.  The  daily  services  were 
seven  in  number — ^just  before  sunset,  at  dusk,  at  midnight, 


THE   SYRIAN   NESTORIANS  487 

at  daybreak,  and  through  the  day;  and  at  these  services 
lessons  from  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  were  read, 
collects  said,  and  hymns,  anthems,  and  responses  sung. 
This  was  the  general  custom  in  Nestorian  monasteries, 
which  followed  in  the  main  the  usual  monastic  routine 
observed  in  other  branches  of  the  Eastern  Church.  There 
was  no  set  and  recognised  scheme  of  music.  Each 
monastery  or  church  had  its  own  tunes.  The  monastery 
was  supported  partly  by  endowments  and  partly  by  the 
labour  of  its  monks.  Soon  after  the  time  of  Thomas 
it  began  to  decline,  owing  to  oppressive  Mohammedan 
taxation  and  also  through  the  violent  aggression  of  the 
Arabs,  who  seized  neighbouring  land  and  villages.  Thomas 
obtained  his  information  through  being  secretary  to  Mar 
Abraham,  the  governor  of  the  monastery  in  his  day. 
Subsequently  he  became  bishop  of  Marga — from  which 
fact  he  comes  to  be  known  as  "  Thomas  of  Marga  " ;  and 
later  still  he  was  honoured  with  the  title  of  "  Metropolitan 
of  Beth  Garmai." 

After  his  apology  and  introduction,  Thomas  begins  his 
narrative  with  an  account  of  the  monastery  of  Mount 
Izla  and  the  unfortunate  happenings  there  which  led  to 
Jacob's  removal  to  Beth  'Abbe.  This  story  is  important 
both  on  its  own  account  and  for  the  light  it  throws 
on  the  circumstances  of  the  times.  The  monks  were 
allowed  to  live  in  scattered  cells  and  more  or  less  widely 
separated  villages,  although  under  the  common  rule  of 
the  governor.  Even  then  the  lack  of  communication  is 
remarkable.  It  was  found  that  the  monks  in  one  of  these 
outlying  villages  were  married.  According  to  one  account, 
a  visitor  saw  the  children  playing  about  in  the  street.  The 
domestic  life  was  carried  on  without  fear  or  reproach,  and 
this  comfortable  arrangement  continued  for  a  number  of 
years  without  any  attempt  at  stopping  it.  At  length  the 
scandal  was  discovered  by  a  monk  named  Elijah,  a  fierce, 
uncompromising  ascetic,  who  determined  to  have  what  he 
described  as  "  the  gangrene "  cut  away.  So  the  story 
stands  in  Thomas's  book.     But  it  is  scarcely  possible  to 


488  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

believe  that  the  village  had  been  so  completely  hidden 
that  no  rumour  of  its  doings  had  got  abroad.  The 
reasonable  explanation  is  that  this  was  known  and  was 
connived  at  by  the  governor  all  along. 

That  such  a  condition  of  things  could  have  been  going 
on  quite  openly,  unmolested  and  unrebuked  for  years,  in 
connection  with  a  monastery,  must  strike  the  reader  who 
has  only  been  accustomed  to  monasticism  in  the  Eoman 
Catholic  and  orthodox  Churches  as  simply  amazing.  It 
was  not  so  remarkable  in  Mesopotamia,  for  it  was  quite 
in  line  with  the  Nestorian  disregard  of  asceticism  which 
allowed  the  marriage  of  bishops.  But  now  comes  this 
stern  censor  denouncing  the  married  monks  with  the  spirit 
of  a  Hildebrand,  or  like  a  Nehemiah  commanding  the 
Israelites  to  send  away  their  foreign  wives.  He  ex- 
postulates with  the  governor  for  not  having  stopped  the 
scandal,  "  while  in  this  Divine  inheritance  Sodom  is  being 
raised  to  life  again,  and  Geba  rebuilt."  ^  The  upshot  is 
that  the  offending  monks  with  their  wives  and  children 
were  expelled  and  their  huts  burned.  But  this  was  not 
all.  Not  so  far  away  there  lived  the  holy  Rabban  Mar 
Jacob,  whom  Thomas  characterises  as  "  the  most  meek  and 
humble  of  all  men,  who  knew  not  that  any  sin  besides  his 
own  existed  in  creation,  whose  eye  was  pure,  and  who 
never  perceived  wickedness  in  his  neighbour."  ^  Was 
there  ever  a  more  lovely  description  of  a  Christian  soul 
than  this  account  of  the  seventh  century  Nestorian  monk 
among  the  mountains  of  Eastern  Syria  ?  He  was  as 
different  as  possible  from  the  fierce  Elijah,  and  that 
self-elected  reformer  charged  Jacob  with  conniving  at 
the  abomination.  Although  the  good  man  had  known 
notliing  of  it,  according  to  Thomas,  or  had  never  suspected 
harm  in  it,  as  we  may  more  probably  conclude,  he  was 
driven  from  the  monastery  almost  broken-hearted.  After 
wandering  al)out  for  a  time  Jacob  came  to  Beth  'Abhe. 
But  this  expulsion  of  a  perfectly  innocent  man  was  not  to 
be  taken  lightly.     The  monks  made  a  great  commotion  at 

'  Book  of  Governors,  Book  i.  chap.  x.  a  Jbid.  chap.  xii. 


THE   SYRIAN   NESTORIANS  489 

the  injustice  of  it,  and  many  of  them  left  in  indignation 
to  become  the  founders  of  various  other  monasteries  at 
Nineveh,  Erzerum,  and  the  country  lying  between  the 
upper  and  lower  Zab  rivers,  till,  as  Thomas  says,  "  they 
filled  the  country  of  the  East  with  monasteries,  and 
convents,  and  habitations  of  monks,  and  Satan  who  had 
rejoiced  at  their  discomfiture  was  put  to  shame."  ^ 

The  second  abbot  of  Beth  'Abbe  was  John,  an  author  of 
some  repute,  who  left  a  chronicle,  rules  for  novices,  maxims, 
etc.  He  was  succeeded  by  Paul,  who  lived  through  a  good 
part  of  the  troublous  times  of  King  Khusrau's  wars  with  the 
Greeks  and  witnessed  a  persecution  of  the  Christians.  In 
the  year  647  Isho-yabbh  became  catholicos,  and  he  greatly 
enriched  the  monastery,  building  a  splendid  church  and 
addiug  other  accessories.  A  second  Hyppolytus,  he  was 
the  author  of  a  "  Eefutation  of  Heretical  Opinions."  Some 
of  the  monks  were  rigid  ascetics  in  spite  of  the  laxity  of 
Nestorianism.  Thomas  tells  us  that  Cyriacus  the  eighteenth 
abbot  used  to  stand  all  night  with  one  knee  "  bent  like  a 
camel,"  and  fastened  with  a  leather  strap.  It  is  more 
edifying  to  learn  how  earnestly  the  necessity  of  labour  was 
insisted  on.  Thus  in  Canon  i.  of  Mar  Abraham  we  read, 
"  Quietness  then  is  preserved  by  these  two  causes,  namely, 
constant  reading  and  prayer,  or  by  the  labour  of  the  hands 
and  meditation  "  ;  and  he  adds,  "  Let  us  flee  from  idleness, 
which  is  a  thing  that  causeth  loss,  being  firmly  persuaded 
that,  if  we  allow  it  to  remain  it  will  be  impossible  for  us 
either  to  bear  leaves  or  to  yield  fruit,  if  indeed  it  happen 
not  that  we  be  altogether  cut  off  from  the  life  of  the  fear 
of  God."  2 

Thomas  narrates  how  the  catholicos  Isho  -  yabbb, 
accompanied  by  some  of  his  bishops,  was  sent  by  the 
Persian  King  Sheroe  ^  to  endeavour  to  bring  about  peace 

1  Ibid.  chap.  xiv.  2  /j^-^;  y^j^  j_  Introd.  p.  cxxv. 

=*  Thomas  calls  him  "the  good  King  Sheroe."  In  point  of  fact,  although 
overtures  of  peace  liad  been  made  to  Heraclius  by  Sheroe,  it  was  the  Queen 
Boran,  daughter  of  Khusrau  Parwey  who  despatched  the  embassy.  See 
Budge,  The  Book  of  Governors,  vol.  ii,  p.  125,  note  2. 


490  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

with  the  Byzantine  Greeks.  In  connection  with  this 
embassy  he  tells  a  story  which  reflects  as  little  credit  on  his 
own  sense  of  honesty  as  on  that  of  the  head  of  his  Church. 
While  "  these  holy  men,"  passing  through  the  city  of 
Antioch,  were  resting  in  one  of  the  churches,  the  catholicos 
observed  a  white  casket  marked  with  the  sign  of  the  cross, 
which  contained  bones  and  portions  of  the  bodies  of  the 
blessed  apostles.  Observing  what  mighty  deeds  were 
wrought  by  these  relics,  Isho-yahbh  prayed  earnestly  that 
he  might  have  the  treasure  to  take  to  his  own  country. 
Having  vexed  and  tortured  himself  with  all  manner  of 
schemes  to  get  hold  of  it  and  not  being  able  to  succeed, 
notwithstanding  his  Oriental  subtlety,  he  put  the  matter  in 
the  hands  of  God  to  protect  him  while  he  did  his  best  to 
secure  the  coveted  casket.  Then  he  stole  it  and  carried 
it  back  with  him  to  Persia.  Thomas  does  not  express  the 
least  disapproval  of  this  transaction.  On  the  contrary, 
he  tells  his  story  with  gusto,  evidently  ascribing  it  to  the 
honour  of  the  catholicos  that  his  trust  in  God  enabled  him 
to  accomplish  the  theft. 

The  monastery  of  Beth  'Abbe  was  subsequently  dis- 
turbed by  the  Euchites.  The  branch  of  these  people,  the 
"  praying  monks,"  in  Syria,  there  called  Messalians,  cherished 
a  severe  doctrine  of  original  sin  together  with  little  faith  in 
the  efficacy  of  sacraments.  Everybody  was  born  with  a  demon 
united  to  his  soul,  which  prompted  him  to  evil  and  which 
was  not  exorcised  by  baptism,  that  rite  only  clipping  off  the 
offence  of  actual  transgressions  "  as  with  shears  while  the 
root  of  the  evil  still  remained  behind."  ^  The  remedy  was 
prayer,  constant,  uninterrupted  prayer.  The  consequence 
was  that  the  Euchites  abandoned  labour,  ceased  to  work 
for  their  bread  like  other  monks,  lived  by  begging,  lay 
about  in  the  streets,  and  spent  much  of  their  time  in 
sleep.  Women  mixed  with  men  in  the  wandering  companies 
of  the  Euchites,  and  charges  of  immorality  amounting  to 
promiscuous  intercourse  were  brought  against  them  on  that 
account,  but  apparently  on  no  other  e\ddence.2  Neander 
*  Timotheus,  De  receipt,  hctr.  i.  2.  *  See  Epiphanius,  Hcer.  80. 


THE    SYRIAN    NESTORIANS  491 

calls  them  "  the  first  mendicant  Friars."  ^  They  are  said  to 
have  believed  that  prayer  drove  out  the  demons  as  spittle, 
mucus  from  the  nose,  or  in  the  form  of  a  serpent  or  a  sow 
with  a  litter  of  pigs.  But  probably  these  absurdities  resulted 
from  taking  their  metaphors  literally.  A  more  dangerous 
and  not  improbable  error  was  the  perfectionism  to  which 
they  inclined.  And  yet,  like  Wesley's  doctrine  of  Christian 
perfection,  this  may  have  been  a  stimulating  ideal  rather 
than  a  vain  boast.  The  first  leader  of  the  party  was  a 
layman  of  Mesopotamia  named  Adelphius.  Flavian,  the 
patriarch  of  Antioch,  induced  him  when  an  old  man  to 
make  a  confidant  of  an  aged  bishop  who  was  really  a  spy. 
The  Euchite  doctrine  being  thus  meanly  extracted,  Adelphius 
and  his  followers  were  beaten,  excommunicated,  and  banished. 
From  Syria  they  went  to  Pamphylia.  Condemned  over  and 
over  again  by  various  local  synods,  they  persisted,  and 
flourished  in  spite  of  scorn  and  hatred.  The  council  of 
Ephesus  confirmed  the  synod's  condemnation  of  the  party, 
and  anathematised  a  Messalian  book  called  Asceticus. 
Subsequently  the  Euchites  had  a  leader  named  Lampetus, 
after  whom  they  were  sometimes  called  Lampetians ;  later 
still  they  were  called  Marcianists,  after  a  leader  of  the  party 
in  the  sixth  century  named  Marcian.  They  hngered  on 
till  they  mingled  with  the  Bogomiles.^  In  the  fourteenth 
century  there  was  a  revival  of  Euchite  ideas  and  practices 
among  the  monks  of  Mount  Athos. 

If  the  charge  of  immorality — so  common  in  the  case  of 
heretics  and  so  generally  baseless — was  a  cruel  libel,  the 
only  serious  objection  to  these  Euchites  in  the  eyes  of  the 
modern  world  would  be  their  idleness.  But  their  slighting 
the  sacraments,  to  which  is  to  be  added  the  fact  that  they 
objected  to  the  choral  services  of  the  Church,  would  be 
quite  enough  to  account  for  their  condemnation  by  their 
contemporaries.  We  may  regard  them,  however,  as  simple 
pietists,  in  some  way  allied  to  Puritanism,  in  some  respects 
anticipating  Quaker  views,  in  some  degree  approaching  the 
modern  devotees  of  what  has  been  called  "  the  higher  life." 
^  Church  Hist.  vol.  iii.  section  iv.  i.  ^  See  p.  225. 


492  THE   TxREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Somewhat  similar  to  the  Euchites  were  the  Eustathians, 
followers  of  Eustathius,  bishop  of  Sebaste  in  Armenia, 
who  l)roke  up  homes,  and  inducer]  husl);inds,  wives,  children, 
and  servants  to  go  off  with  the  wandering  bands.  They 
would  partake  of  no  sacrament  administered  by  a  married 
priest.  For  the  same  reason  they  would  not  meet  for 
worship  in  the  house  of  a  married  man. 


CHAPTER    III 

THE  LATER  NESTORIANS,  TFIE  CHALD^EANS,  AND 
THE  JACOBITES 

(a)  Thomas  of  Marga,  Historia  Monastica  (edited  by  Budge,  1893) ; 

John   of    Ejjhe.sus,   Ecclesiastical   History    (trans.    l)y  Payne 

Smith)  ;    Zachariah,    Syriac    Chronicle,    Eng.    trans.,    1899 ; 

Asseman,  BihUofh.  Oriental,  tomes  ii.  and  iv. 
(6)  Etheridge,  Syrian  Churches,  1846  ;  Badger,  Nestorians  and  their 

Ritual,  1862. 

The  Nestorians. 

During  the  earlier  part  of  its  histor}'^  the  Nestorian  Church 
in  the  Persian  Empire  went  through  the  trying  experience 
of  alternate  patronage  and  persecution.  It  is  difficult  to 
say  which  was  the  more  hurtful  to  it.  The  patronage  was 
continuous  over  long  periods  of  time ;  the  persecution 
took  the  form  of  sudden  outbreaks  of  massacre.  When  the 
monarch  smiled  on  the  Church  he  took  good  care  to  keep 
it  well  in  hand,  appointing  his  own  nominee  as  catholicos 
and  deposing  him  if  he  did  not  give  satisfaction.  The 
Persian  Nestorians  being  at  feud  with  the  orthodox  Greeks 
in  the  Byzantine  Empire,  it  was  profitable  to  the  king  of 
Persia  for  the  quarrel  between  the  two  Churches  to  come  to 
the  assistance  of  the  antagonism  between  the  two  empires. 
But  while  this  might  suit  the  purposes  of  the  sovereign,  it 
was  by  no  means  pleasing  to  the  Magi,  who  saw  in  the 
Church  their  deadly  rival.  Therefore  whenever  the  Magian 
influence  got  the  upper  hand  the  Christians  had  to  suffer. 
In  consequence  of  one  of  these  persecutions,  which  began  in 
the  year  608,  the  office  of  catholicos  was  vacant  for  twenty 


494  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

years,  at  the  end  of  which  time  of  gloom  and  desolation  it 
was  restored  in  the  person  of  Jesu-Jabus.^  who  lived  to  see 
the  fall  of  the  royal  house  of  the  Sassanidse  (a.d.  651). 
During  the  patriarchate  of  Jesu-Jabus,  Persia  was  over- 
whelmed by  the  Mohammedan  tide  of  conquest,  the  con- 
sequence of  which  was  oppression  under  a  more  anti- 
Christian  tyranny  than  that  of  the  Zoroastrian  rulers  it 
superseded.  But  this  has  not  always  been  equally  severe. 
The  cathohcos  obtained  from  the  caliph  an  assurance  of 
protection  for  the  Christians,  with  a  right  to  practise  their 
religion  on  the  usual  condition  of  paying  tribute.  He  even 
got  better  terms  from  Omar  at  a  later  time,  having  the 
tribute  remitted.  The  next  caliph,  Ibn  Abi  Taleb,  con- 
firmed these  privileges  in  a  charter  which  expressed  polite 
esteem  for  the  Christianity  of  the  Nestorians.  No  doubt, 
like  his  predecessors  the  Persian  kings,  he  was  astute  enough 
to  perceive  the  wisdom  of  favouring  the  heretics,  both  for 
the  sake  of  weakening  the  Christian  cause  by  means  of 
divisions,  and  on  account  of  the  close  alliance  between  the 
orthodox  Church,  which  repudiated  them,  and  the  Byzantine 
Empire.  In  the  year  762,  under  the  enlightened  caliphate 
of  Bagdad,  the  Nestorian  catholicos  removed  to  that  city, 
then  a  centre  of  learning  and  science,  and  there  the  Christian 
prelate  lived  on  good  terms  with  the  Mussulman  despot.^ 

During  the  next  five  hundred  years  the  Nestorian  Church 
was  allowed  to  go  its  own  way,  sometimes  with  kindly 
recognition  from  liberal  caliphs,  sometimes  harassed  by 
harsh  tyrants,  but  still  all  the  time  a  recognised  institution 
within  tlie  territory  of  Islam.  Then  came  the  terrible 
l)ar baric  invasions,  which  threatened  to  sweep  civilisation 
away  in  the  regions  of  the  Greek  Empire,  and  which 
brought  a  night  of  three  centuries  on  the  opening  day  of 
Eussian  Christianity.  Their  influence  on  the  Mohammedan 
countries  has  not  been  noted  with  so  much  concern,  and  yet 
it  would  have  been  tremendous  if  these  conquering  heathen 
hordes  had  not  been  rapidly  absorbed  into  Islam,  with  the 
ultimate  result  that  the  Turkish  superseded  the  Arab  rule 
^  Asseman,  tome  iv.  p.  37.  ^  Ihid.  iv.  pp.  94  flf. 


LATER  NESTORIANS,  CHALD^EANS,  AND  JACOBITES      4P5 

over  the  lands  that  Mohammed  and  his  successors  had  won 
by  the  sword.  In  the  year  1258,  Hidaku  Khan,  the 
nephew  of  Genghis  Khan,  took  Bagdad,  and  put  an  end  to 
the  caHphate  in  that  city.  He  was  the  son  of  a  Christian 
mother  and  he  had  a  Christian  wife.  Indeed,  he  entered 
into  negotiations  with  the  pope  and  with  the  kings  of 
France  and  England  with  a  view  to  an  alliance  against 
the  Saracens.  Several  of  his  successors  publicly  professed 
themselves  as  Christians ;  others  stood  for  Islam.  Their 
power  rapidly  decHned.  Meanwhile,  although  the  Nes- 
torians  were  now  very  numerous,  their  moral  influence  was 
weakened  and  their  church  life  degenerated.  This  unsatis- 
factory state  of  affairs  continued  for  nearly  a  hundred  and 
fifty  years.  We  are  now  at  the  end  of  the  fourteenth 
century — a  time  of  overwhelming  calamities.  Another  wave 
of  invasion  from  the  steppes  of  Asia  next  appeared,  led  by  the 
dreadful  Timuur,  who  seized  and  sacked  Bagdad,  Aleppo, 
and  Damascus  about  the  year  1400.  He  presented  him- 
self as  a  champion  of  Islam  with  a  policy  very  different 
from  the  Tartar  khans  of  Bagdad ;  for  Timour  savagely 
attacked  the  Syrian  Christians,  many  of  whom  he  captured, 
while  those  who  succeeded  in  escaping  fled  to  the  inacces- 
sible mountains  of  Kurdistan.  It  was  the  break-up  of  the 
ancient  Syrian  Church  that  had  had  so  large  a  share  in 
the  history  of  Mesopotamia  and  wide  areas  farther  north 
and  east  for  a  thousand  years.  The  Nestorians  still  lingered 
on ;  they  have  remained  to  the  present  day ;  but  they  have 
never  recovered  their  ancient  power  and  prestige.^ 

A  curious  account  of  the  Nestorians  is  given  by 
Albinmi,  a  Mohammedan  writer  who  lived  at  Khiva  be- 
tween A.D.  973  and  1048.  He  contrasts  them  with  the 
Catholic  party  on  account  of  their  superior  intellectual 
activity,  saying,  "  Nestorius  instigated  people  to  examine 
for  themselves,  and  to  use  the  instruments  of  logic 
and  analogy  in  meeting  their  opponents."  ^     This  author 

^  See  Asseman,  tome  iv.  p.  138  ff. 

2  Chronology  of  A  ncient  Nations,    translated   by  E.   Sachau  (Oriental 
Translation  Fund,  1879),  p.  306. 


496  THE    GREEK    AND   EASTERN    CHURCHES 

states  tliat  they  agree  with  the  Melchites  ^  in  the  observ- 
ance of  Lent,  Cliristmas,  and  Epiphany,  but  differ  from 
them  as  to  all  other  feasts  and  fasts.  At  the  feast  of 
Maal'tha^  he  tells  us,  "  They  wander  from  the  nave  of  their 
churches  up  to  the  roof  in  memory  of  the  return  of  the 
Israelites  to  Jerusalem,"  an  indication  of  Jewish  associations 
on  the  part  of  the  Nestorians.  Albiruni  declared  that  the 
majority  of  the  inhabitants  of  Syria,  Irak,  and  Khurasan 
were  Nestorians. 

The  lot  of  the  Nestorians  in  modern  times  is  pitiable. 
In  the  year  1843  four  thousand  of  them  were  massacred 
by  the  Kurds.  Layard  describes  his  visit  to  a  ghastly 
scene  of  skeletons,  skulls,  scattered  bones,  rotting  garments 
on  rocks  and  bushes  and  ledges  of  a  precipice  over  which 
men,  women,  and  children  had  been  hurled.  Everywhere 
he  found  villages  devastated  and  churches  in  ruins,  or,  if  in 
some  cases  they  were  roughly  rebuilt,  the  people  afraid  to 
use  them,  because  the  patriarch  was  in  prison  and  unable 
to  reconsecrate  the  desecrated  houses  of  worship. 

The  wonder  is  that  these  oppressed  people,  excom- 
municated by  the  Greek  Church  and  persecuted  by  their 
Mussulman  neighbours,  still  retain  their  loyalty  to  what 
they  believe  to  be  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints, 
even  to  the  extent  of  martyrdom.  They  have  very  little 
to  encourage  them  in  what  Protestants  would  call  "  the 
means  of  grace."  Their  liturgies  are  in  old  Syriac,  which 
is  unintelligible  to  the  people  of  the  present  day — except 
where,  as  Layard  says,  it  is  translated  into  the  vernacular. 
They  hear  no  preaching.  Their  chief  religious  functions 
are  fasts,  of  which  there  are  153  in  the  year.  One  con- 
sequence of  their  isolation  is  that,  while  they  have  sunk 
into  ignorance,  they  have  not  degenerated  in  doctrine  and 
ritual  to  the  same  extent  as  more  active  churches.  They 
have  no  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  no  purgatory ; 
they  do  not  sanction  Mariolatry  or  image  worship ;    nor 

^  Tlie  orthodox,  as  the  ])arty  of  tlie  "  king,"  i.e.  the  Byzantine  emperor, 
a  title  ajjplied  to  them  in  contrast  to  Nestorians. 
^  Iii,gressus. 


LATER  NESTORIANS,  CHALDEANS,  AND  JACOBITES      497 

will  they  even  allow  icons  to  be  exhibited  in  their  churches. 
Men  and  women  take  the  communion  in  both  kinds.  All 
five  orders  of  clergy  below  the  bishops  are  permitted  to 
marry.  Dr.  Layard  could  not  find  any  convents  either  for 
men  or  for  women. 

Thus  in  many  respects  the  modern  Nestorians  are 
nearer  to  European  Protestantism  than  to  Eoman  Catholi- 
cism. While  those  who  have  succumbed  to  the  Jesuit 
missions  are  bound  to  accept  the  full  Western  doctrine 
■ — if  they  really  know  what  that  is — the  sturdy  resist- 
ance of  the  old  Nestorians  to  the  papal  pretensions 
throws  them  into  an  attitude  which  is  essentially  pro- 
testant.  But  they  are  neither  Lutheran  nor  Calvinistic. 
They  have  any  essential  Western  Protestantism  in  their 
constitution.  Such  ideas  of  Luther  as  the  priesthood  of  all 
Christians  and  justification  by  faith  are  quite  unknown  to 
these  scattered  communities  of  the  primitive  Syrian  Church. 
In  their  daily  life  the  Syrian  and  Persian  Nestorians 
have  the  reputation  of  being  superior  to  their  Mohammedan 
neighbours.  They  are  honest,  thrifty,  perhaps  even  par- 
simonious. Such  people  are  well  worthy  of  the  sympathy 
and  assistance  of  their  more  fortunate  and  more  enlightened 
fellow-Christians.  The  first  necessity  is  to  protect  them 
from  oppression  and  outrage.  What  they  need  is  educa- 
tion, not  ecclesiastical  proselytising.  They  are  said  not 
to  know  the  elements  of  the  gospel.  Then  the  best 
action  of  friendly  English  or  American  churches  would  be 
to  evangelise  them  by  teaching  them  the  contents  of  their 
own  Scriptures.  Some  good  work  of  this  kind  is  already 
going  on  under  the  American  missionaries. 

One  cause  of  the  weakening  of  this  ancient  Syrian 
Church  may  be  found  in  its  divisions.  In  particular  there 
are  the  Chaldseans  and  the  Jacobites. 

The  Chaldeans. 

The  sect  known  as  the  "  Chaldseans  "  is  of  recent  origin, 
having  originated  in  the  year   1681,  when  the  Nestorian 
32 


498  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

patriarch  of  Diarbekir,  having  quarrelled  with  the  catholicos, 
turned  to  tlie  pope,  who  consecrated  him  "  patriarch  of  the 
Ohaldaeaiis,"  thus  creating  the  new  office  on  his  own 
authority.  This  movement  was  the  result  of  a  Jesuit 
mission  in  the  East,  and  the  Chaldeans  are  a  sect  spring- 
ing out  of  the  influence  of  that  mission.^  The  Crusades 
raised  hopes  on  the  part  of  the  papacy  that  if  the  stub- 
born Greek  Church  could  not  be  induced  to  bow  the  neck 
to  the  pope,  the  Nestorians  who  were  anathematised  by  that 
church  might  join  hands  with  the  Latin  Church.  Their  very 
antagonism  to  the  Byzantines  might  induce  them  to  have 
friendly  feelings  towards  the  rival  communion.  Accordingly 
efforts  were  made  to  win  over  the  Nestorians  in  the  year 
1247,  and  again  some  forty  years  later  ;  but  though  Eastern 
courtesy  or  suppleness  at  first  deceived  the  papal  mis- 
sionaries with  hopes  of  success,  these  were  doomed  to  dis- 
appointment. Nothing  more  was  done  for  more  than  three 
hundred  years.  Then,  in  the  year  1552,  a  large  secession 
from  the  Nestorian  Church  took  place  on  the  question  of 
the  election  of  a  catholicos.  The  office  had  long  been 
liereditary;  but  at  length  a  considerable  body  of  clergy 
objected  to  this  unhealthy  arrangement,  and  on  the  death 
of  a  patriarch  in  the  year  1551  they  passed  by  his  nephew 
and  elevated  to  the  vacant  post  a  more  popular  candidate, 
Sind  (or  Sulaka).  Now  it  was  held  to  be  requisite  that 
three  metropolitans  should  take  part  in  the  appointment  of 
a  patriarch.  But  there  were  not  three  to  be  found  siding 
with  the  schism.  The  difficulty  was  got  over  by  an 
appeal  to  Rome,  and  the  Chaldsean  catholicos  was  conse- 
crated by  Pope  Julius  iii.  At  the  same  time  a  priest 
named  Mojies  brought  the  Peshitta  to  Europe,  and  thus 
prepared  for  the  study  of  Syrian  Christianity  by  Western 
scholars. 


^  Etheridge  says  that  the  Chaldseans  came  from  both  sections  of  Eastern 
Syrian  Christians— the  Nestorians  and  the  Jacobites,  and  claims  in  support 
of  this  view  the  authority  of  Smith  and  Dwight,  "Researches  in  Armenia," 
in  Grant's  Nestorians  or  Lost  Tribes,  [..  170.  But  according  to  Badger 
they  are  simply  a  branch  of  the  Nestorians. 


LATER  NESTORIANS,  CHALDEANS,  AND  JACOBITES      499 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed,  however,  that  the  mere  question 
of  arranging  a  consecration  was  the  only  motive  for  so  im- 
portant a  step  as  this  union.  With  some  we  may  see  in  it 
the  outcome  of  the  repeated  efforts  of  the  Latin  Churcli 
to  absorb  the  Nestorians.  The  connection  once  estabhshed 
was  continued,  and  the  successors  of  Sind  also  obtained  their 
consecration  from  Kome.  Thus  the  Chaldaeans  are  the 
Nestorians  who  have  submitted  to  the  papacy,  and  we  may 
regard  them  as  the  fruits  of  the  Jesuit  missions  in  Syria. 
They  are  called  by  the  Syrian  Christians  who  have  success- 
fully resisted  the  papal  aggression,  the  Ma/jhlobeen,  that  is, 
"  the  Conquered."  The  Chaldseans  are  now  chiefly  found 
in  rural  districts  east  of  the  Tigris,  and  they  are  com- 
paratively numerous  at  Elkoosh,  where  they  have  a  large 
monastery  bearing  the  name  of  Eabban  Hormuz  ;  they  have 
a  catholicos  at  Bagdad. 

Abortive  attempts  at  union  with  Rome  have  been  made 
from  time  to  time  in  other  quarters.  Thus  Elias  IL,  bishop 
of  Mosul,  sent  two  deputations  to  Pope  Paul  iv.,  the  first  in 
the  year  1607  and  the  second  three  years  later.  In  a  letter 
which  accompanied  his  messengers  he  expressed  a  desire 
for  a  reconciliation  between  the  Nestorians  and  the  Latin 
Church.  Again,  in  the  year  1657,  another  approach  from 
the  Nestorian  side  was  attempted,  when  Elias  iii.  addressed 
a  letter  to  the  congi'egation  De  Propaganda  Fide,  expressing 
his  readiness  to  join  the  Church  of  Eome  on  two  conditions 
—  (1)  that  the  pope  would  allow  the  Nestorians  to  have  a 
church  of  their  own  in  the  city  of  Eome ;  (2)  that  they 
should  not  be  required  to  alter  their  doctrine  or  discipline. 
Sanda  simplicitas!  Nothing  could  come  of  that.  Subse- 
quently the  Nestorian  bishops  of  Ormus,  who  all  bore 
the  name  of  Simeon,  more  than  once  proposed  plans  of 
reconciliation  with  Eome,  and  one  of  them  sent  a  confes- 
sion of  faith  to  the  pontiff  to  demonstrate  their  orthodoxy. 
But  it  all  came  to  nothing.  The  main  body  of  the 
Nestorians  has  remained  in  neglected  isolation  and  poverty. 
Meanwhile  the  Eoman  Catholic  propaganda  never  ceases 
its  efforts  to  gather  these  far-off  wandering  sheep  into  its 


500  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

fold.i  In  the  eighteenth  century  it  won  over  a  small  body 
of  Nestorians  at  Diabeker.  But  for  the  most  part  these 
attempts  have  been  fruitless. 

The  Jacobites. 

The  Jacobites  are  the  representatives  of  Monophysitism 

in  the  Syrian  Church,  and  therefore  they  are  at  the  antipodes 

of  the  Nestorians  in  regard  to  divergence  from  the  Greek 

Church.      They  are  named  after  Jacob  surnamed  Al  Bardai, 

either  from  Bardaa,  a  city  in  Armenia,  or,  as  is  generally 

assumed,  from  a  sort  of  felt  which  the  Arabs  call  "  barda," 

used  for  saddle-cloths,  which  he  wore  in  a  ragged  condition, 

so  that  he  went  about,  it  was  said,  looking  like  a  beggar. 

Born  at  Tela,  a  place  also  called  Constantina,  fifty-five  miles 

east  of  Edessa,  towards  the  close  of  the  fifth  century,  he 

was  brought  up  in  a  monastery,  where  he  was  educated  in 

Monophysite  theology  and  Greek  and  Syriac  literature,  and 

disciplined  with  severe  asceticism,  and  whence  his  fame  as 

a  monk  miracle-worker  rapidly  spread.      When  it  reached 

the  Empress  Theodora  she  summoned  him  to  Constantinople, 

reckoning  him  to  be  a  valuable  asset  for  the  cause   that 

she  was  intriguing  to  help  forward.     He  came  reluctantly, 

having  no  ambition  for  the  honours  that  the  empress  heaped 

upon  him.      Detesting  the  luxury  and  worldly  glamour  of 

the  court,  he  retired  to  a  monastery  near  the  city,  where  he 

remained  for  fifteen  years,  living  the  life  of  a  complete 

recluse.     But  his  work  was  yet  before  him.      In  spite  of 

his  long-practised  habit  of  retirement,  he  was  destined  to  a 

career  of  great  activity.      His  call  came  from  the  desperate 

needs  of  his  party.     The  weak  Justinian,  who  had  wavered 

for  some  time  under  the  influence  of  his  masterful  consort, 

was  brought  at  length  to  take  vigorous  measures  for  the 

enforcement  of   the   Chalcedonian   decrees.      Bishops   and 

inferior    clergy    who    refused    to    accept    them    were    re- 

^  A  Nestorian  priest  at  Amadieh  deplored  to  the  American  missionary, 
Dr.  Grant,  that  his  own  father  had  been  bastinadoed  in  order  to  compel  him 
to  become  a  Roman  Catholic.     See  Etheridge,  pp.  127,  128. 


LATER  NESTORIANS,  CHALDEANS,  AND  JACOBITES     501 

moved  from  tlieir  posts  and  punished  with  exile  and  im- 
prisonment. The  consequence  was  that  over  a  very  wide 
area  where  the  Monophysite  doctrine  prevailed,  the  people 
were  deprived  of  any  ministry  according  to  their  own  views, 
and  therefore  left,  as  Gihbon  sneeringly  remarks,  to  the 
choice  of  being  "  famished  or  poisoned."  Then  Harith  the 
Magnificent,  a  sheikh  of  the  Christian  Arabs,  brought  the 
case  of  these  unhappy  people  before  their  patroness 
Theodora,  and  so  induced  her  to  drag  Jacob  out  of  his  cell 
and  persuade  him  to  return  to  Eastern  Syria  for  the  help 
of  his  fellow-religionists. 

Jacob  was  now  launched  on  a  perilous  and  exacting 
undertaking ;  for  his  mission  was  to  be  followed  out  in 
defiance  of  the  emperor's  orders,  and  it  demanded  immense 
energy  as  well  as  heroic  courage.  The  brave  man  rose  to 
the  occasion.  He  changed  his  manner  of  life.  From 
being  a  shrinking  recluse  and  letting  the  years  ghde 
by  unmarked  in  the  even  course  of  the  monastic  life,  he 
suddenly  plunged  into  a  sea  of  affairs,  and  undertook  long 
journeys  sometimes  on  foot,  at  other  times  on  a  fleet 
dromedary  lent  him  by  the  sheikh.  He  traversed  Asia 
Minor,  Syria,  and  Mesopotamia,  as  far  as  Persia.  Wherever 
he  went  he  ordained  bishops  and  priests,  exhorted  the 
people  to  fidelity  to  their  creed,  and  encouraged  them 
amid  persecutions  and  disappointments.  His  enthusiasm 
was  infectious,  and  his  indefatigable  labours  were  rewarded 
with  brilliant  success.  Jacob  was  credited  with  having 
ordained  a  fabulous  number  of  clergy.^  Thus  the  fire 
which  Justinian  thought  he  had  stamped  out  had  burst 
into  flame  again.  The  orthodox  bishops  were  enraged. 
The  emperor  was  indignant.  He  would  have  seized  the 
obnoxious  disturber  of  his  happy  settlement  if  only  he 
could  have  done  so.  Orders  were  issued  for  the  arrest  of 
Jacob ;  rewards  were  offered  to  any  who  could  catch  him. 
It  was  all  in  vain.  Jacob  seemed  to  be  ubiquitous.  He 
had  friends  among  the  Arabs  who  hid  him  whenever  danger 

^  According  to  John   of  Asia  100.000,  including  eighty-nine  bishops 
and  two  patriarchs.     See  Laud,  Anecdot.  Syr.  ii.  251. 


502  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

threatened.  So,  while  many  an  obscure  Monophysite 
bishop  was  languishing  in  a  dungeon,*  this  chief  offender 
not  only  remained  at  large,  but  continued  his  labours 
among  the  people  in  promoting  the  cause  to  which  he 
was  devoted,  at  the  risk  of  his  liberty,  perhaps  his  life. 

This  is  the  bright  page  of  the  story.  The  sequel  is 
very  disappointing.  Like  many  another  enthusiast,  Jacob 
failed  in  administration.  His  very  simplicity,  preserved 
for  so  many  years  in  the  seclusion  of  his  cell,  unfitted  him 
for  dealing  with  designing  men.  Unhappily  there  were 
some  of  this  kind  about  him  who  played  the  unsuspecting 
saint  for  their  own  purposes,  and  all  unconsciously  he 
became  a  tool  in  their  hands.  The  consequence  was  that 
the  Monophysite  party  was  split  into  miserable  factions, 
which  sometimes  came  to  blows  and  even  murder.  The 
most  important  and  wide-reaching  of  these  disturbances 
was  occasioned  by  the  conduct  of  Paul,  whom  Jacob  had 
ordained  "  Patriarch  of  Antioch."  During  the  persecution 
Paul  and  three  other  leading  bishops  of  his  party  were 
summoned  to  Constantinople,  where  they  were  harshly 
treated,  till  one  after  another  all  yielded  to  the  combined 
pressure  of  government  authority  and  popular  disfavour. 
It  was  purely  an  act  of  weakness,  and  Paul  immediately 
shrank  away  into  retirement,  taking  refuge  in  Arabia 
with  Moudir,  Harith's  successor.  As  soon  as  Jacob  heard 
of  the  defection  of  the  patriarch  whom  he  had  himself 
nominated,  he  indignantly  excommunicated  the  unhappy 
man.  But  Paul  was  heartily  ashamed  of  his  conduct, 
and  after  three  years  Jacob  acknowledged  his  penitence 
and  consented  to  receive  him  into  communion  again 
after  a  synod  of  Monophysites  had  sanctioned  this 
proposal.  That,  however,  did  not  end  the  trouble.  It 
only  transferred  it  to  the  Monophysites  at  Alexandria, 
who  appear  to  have  had  other  and  earlier  grounds 
of  complaint  against  the  culprit,  previously  well  known 
in  their  city.  Peter  the  Monophysite  patriarch  pro- 
nounced his  deposition — a  distinct  breach  of  canon  law, 
for  Alexandria  had  no  jurisdiction  over  Antioch ;  the  two 


LATER  NESTORIANS,  OHALD.EANS,  AND  JACOBITES      503 

jtatriarchs  were  of  equal  rank  and  mutually  independent. 
Jacob  went  to  Alexandria  to  endeavour  to  settle  the 
matter.  But  he  was  not  the  man  for  delicate  negotiations. 
The  party  of  Peter  won  him  over  to  signing  his  assent  to 
the  deposition  of  Paul,  though  not  to  the  excommunication 
of  him.  The  result  was  a  schism  beginning  in  the  year 
576,  which,  as  John  of  Asia  says,  "spread  like  an  ulcer."  ^ 
The  misfortune  was  that  both  parties  were  Monophysite, 
both  therefore  under  the  ban  of  the  Chalcedonian  party 
and  the  imperial  government.  All  other  attempts  at  a 
settlement  having  failed,  Jacob  set  out  a  second  time  for 
Alexandria  in  the  vain  hope  of  making  terms  of  peace. 
He  was  now  an  old  man,  wearied  and  vexed  with  the 
constant  strife  in  the  midst  of  which  his  lot  was  cast,  so 
utterly  against  his  will  and  nature,  since  he  would  have 
infinitely  preferred  the  quiet  seclusion  of  his  cell  from 
which  he  had  been  dragged  against  his  will.  He  never 
reached  his  destination.  His  party  was  stricken  with  a 
serious  illness  at  the  monastery  of  Cassianus  on  the  borders 
of  Egypt,  and  Jacob  and  three  members  of  the  company 
died  there  (July  a.d.  578).  Of  course  there  were  rumours 
of  foul  play.  But  no  evidence  was  brought  forward  to 
confirm  them.  It  was  perhaps  a  happy  ending  to  a  life 
which  at  its  zenith  had  shone  with  brilliant  success,  but 
the  later  half  of  which  had  been  overcast  with  gloom  and 
failure.  Jacob  was  a  good,  unambitious  man,  an  enthusiastic 
evangelist,  an  indefatigable  peace-maker ;  but  the  larger 
half  of  the  Church  denounced  his  evangel,  and  his  old  friends 
whom  he  desired  to  reconcile  would  not  have  his  peace. 

Meanwhile  the  persecution  of  the  Syrian  Monophysites, 
like  that  of  the  Nestorians  at  an  earlier  date,  was  driving 
them  into  the  hands  of  the  Persians.  Then  divisions  of  a 
doctrinal  character  appeared  among  them.  There  were 
the  Niobites,  led  by  Niobes,  a  teacher  who  maintained  the 
perfect  unity  of  Christ  as  distinguished  from  the  more 
moderate  Monophysites,  among  whom  some  distinction 
between    the    Divinity    and    the   humanity    was    allowed. 

^  John  of  Asia  (trans,  by  Payne  Smith),  p.  282. 


504  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Then  there  were  the  Tritheites,  who  appeared  in  the  reign 
of  Justin  II.  under  the  leadership  of  John  Askunages 
("  Bottle-shoes  ")  who,  according  to  Bar  Hebraus  stated  his 
views  thus  :  "  I  confess  one  nature  of  Christ,  the  Incarnate 
Word ;  but  in  the  Trinity  I  reckon  the  natures  and  sub- 
stances and  godheads  according  to  the  number  of  the  per- 
sons." There  was  a  clearness  and  logical  consistency  in  the 
views  of  these  people  not  attained  by  less  daring  thinkers. 
If  the  humanity  of  Christ  is  so  absorbed  and  transmuted 
as  to  be  entirely  lost  in  His  Divinity,  either  you  must  have 
a  Patripassion  or  at  least  a  Sabellian  Monarchianism,  or 
you  must  find  His  distinctive  individuality  in  His  Divine 
nature.  In  the  latter  case,  if  as  God  He  is  a  distinct 
individual  by  the  side  of  the  Father,  you  have  two  Gods, 
and  as  the  same  is  said  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  consequence 
is  Tri  theism.  Later  there  appeared  people  known  as 
Tetratheists,  in  consequence  of  the  teaching  of  Damianus, 
a  Syrian,  the  Severian  or  Monophysite  patriarch  of  Alex- 
andria—Peter's  successor — at  the  end  of  the  sixth  century. 
He  recognised  first  the  essential  personality  of  the  one 
substance,  God  in  Himself,  and  then  a  separate  individu- 
ality for  each  of  the  Three  Persons  of  the  Trinity.  His 
opponent,  Peter  of  Caliuicus,  would  make  him  push  his 
argument  further,  and  so  come  to  have  a  separate  divinity 
for  each  property  of  God,  a  perfect  pantheon,  if  he  would 
be  consistent  with  his  root  principle.  But  John  of  Asia 
describes  him  as  an  untrustworthy  and  inconsistent  man.^ 
Other  divisions  of  the  Monophysites  are  more  closely 
associated  with  Alexandria  and  the  Coptic  Church  than 
with  the  Syrian.  But  they  have  lingered  on  in  Syria 
down  to  the  present  day.  The  Jacobites  are  now  mostly 
found  in  Mesopotamia,  especially  at  Mosul  and  Mardeen. 
There  aie  scarcely  any  left  in  Palestine  and  few  in 
Damascus.  But  they  have  a  monastery  at  Jerusalem, 
and  some  of  them  are  to  be  found  at  Hamah  and  Aleppo. 
Etheridge  calculates  that  apart  from  the  colony  at  Malabar 
the  total  number  of  Jacobites  is  now  probably  not  more 

'  John  of  Asia,  p.  306. 


LATER  NESTOHIANS,  CHALDiEANS,  AND  JACOBITES      505 

than  150,000.'^  They  claim  to  be  descended  from  the 
original  Hebrew  Christians  and  designate  themselves  "  B'ne 
Israel."  In  their  church  government  they  are  very  hier- 
archical, although  their  orders  are  under  suspicion  since 
they  are  derived  from  Jacob  Al  Bardai,  whose  own  ordina- 
tion to  the  episcopate  has  been  questioned,  for  some  have 
maintained  that  he  was  only  ordained  as  a  presbyter. 

In  conclusion  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  Syrian 
Church  has  made  no  inconsiderable  contributions  to  litera- 
ture, although  Eenan's  generalised  verdict  of  mediocrity 
must  be  applied  to  the  mass  of  it.  First  we  have  the 
Peshitta,  the  standard  Syriac  Bible,  the  Vulgate  of  the 
East.  Then  there  are  several  versions  and  successive 
revisions  made  by  Jacobite  scholars  in  the  interest  of  the 
Monophysite  doctrine.  The  first  of  these  was  produced 
by  Aksenaya,  or  Philoxenus,  bishop  of  Mabbogh,  with  the 
assistance  of  his  chorepiscopus  Poly  carp,  which  appeared  in 
the  year  508,  and  became  popular  among  the  Jacobites ;  it 
was  superseded  by  later  revisions,  especially  that  of  Thomas 
of  Heraclea,  bishop  of  the  same  city  of  Mabbogh  early  in 
the  seventh  century.  A  hundred  years  later  a  final  attempt 
at  revision  of  the  Old  Testament  was  made  by  Jacob  of 
Edessa,  but  his  work  does  not  seem  to  have  met  with 
acceptance,  and  he  did  not  proceed  to  revise  the  New  Testa- 
ment. The  Melchite  or  Greek  Church  of  Palestine  had  its 
own  revision  in  the  local  Aramaic  dialect,  a  dialect  corre- 
sponding to  the  Jewish  Targums,  and  probably  more  nearly 
approaching  that  spoken  by  our  Lord  than  that  of  any 
other  version.  Meanwhile  the  Nestorians  held  to  the  old 
Peshitta,  and  opposed  stolid  indifference  to  the  only  attempt 
ever  made  to  give  them  a  more  accurate  version,  when 
Mar  Abha  i.,  a  catholicos  in  the  middle  of  the  sixth 
century,  having  studied  Greek  under  a  teacher  at  Edessa 
named  Thomas,  with  his  assistance  made  a  new  translation 
into  Syriac  of  all  the  Old  Testament  and  perhaps  also  the 
New. 

The  story  of   Syriac   literature   properly  begins  with 

*  Syrian  Churches,  p.  149,  note. 


506  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Tatian's  Diatessaron.  Next  comes  the  scholar  Bardaisan, 
whom  the  Church  failed  to  retain  and  who  has  been 
called  "  the  last  of  the  Gnostics."  While  his  authorship 
of  the  important  work  De  Fato,  already  briefly  described,^ 
is  doubtful,  he  is  stated  to  have  written  a  History 
of  Armenia  and  a  book  called  Rypomnemata  Indica, 
compiled  out  of  information  he  obtained  from  Indian 
ambassadors  on  their  way  through  Edessa  to  the  Roman 
court.  Jacob  of  Nisibis  is  a  famous  Syrian  writer  of  the 
fourth  century ;  but  the  Homilies  once  ascribed  to  him  are 
now  said  to  have  been  written  by  Aphraates,  who  was 
followed  towards  the  end  of  the  century  by  Ephraim,"  and 
the  poets  Balai  or  Balseus,  who  has  given  his  name  to  the 
pentasyllable  metre,  and  Cyrillona,  who  composed  a  poem 
"  on  the  locusts,  and  on  Divine  chastisements,  and  on  the 
Huns."  The  present  form  of  the  famous  "  Doctrine  of 
Addai" — the  work  in  which  the  legend  of  Abgar  is  enshrined, 
and  where  we  have  the  narrative  of  the  early  evangelising 
of  Edessa  and  the  first  bishops  and  martyrs — cannot  be 
earlier  than  the  fourth  century.  Only  fragments  of  the 
works  of  Rabbulas  have  been  found.  Previous  to  elevation 
to  the  episcopate,  his  successor  Ibas  had  been  one  of  the 
translators  of  Theodore's  works.  The  Monophysites  claimed 
Simeon  the  Stylite  as  sharing  their  views,  and  an  eighth 
century  manuscript  contains  a  letter  ascribed  to  him  and 
addressed  to  the  Emperor  Leo,  and  another  manuscript  of 
the  same  period  contains  three  letters  credited  with  the 
same  authorship ;  all  of  which  documents,  if  genuine,  go 
to  show  that  he  did  not  accept  the  decision  of  Chaloedon. 
At  the  end  of  the  fifth  century  we  come  upon  Jacob  of 
Serugh,  who  was  described  as  "  the  flute  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  the  harp  of  the  believing  Church."  He  left  a  mass 
of  poems.  According  to  the  historian  Bar  Hebrseus,  he 
had  seventy  amanuenses  to  copy  out  his  760  metrical 
homilies,  as  well  as  his  commentaries  and  letters,  odes  and 
hymns.  The  most  famous  Syrian  writer  of  the  sixth 
century  is  John  of  Asia,  whose  Ecdemistical  History  is 
^  See  p.  466.  2  ggg  p_  473^ 


LATER  NESTORIANS,  CHALD.^ANS,  AND  JACOBITES      507 

our  chief  source  of  information  for  the  period  covered  by 
the  third  part  of  it — which  is  all  we  possess  in  a  complete 
form.  John  was  a  missionary  among  the  heathen  of 
Asia,  Lydia,  Caria,  and  Phrygia,  and  he  was  remarkably 
successful  in  winning  converts  from  paganism  to  Chris- 
tianity. Yet  he  was  a  Monophysite.  From  these  facts 
we  may  draw  two  instructive  inferences.  First,  if  there 
was  something  peculiarly  stimulating  to  missionary  enthusi- 
asm and  promising  for  its  fruitfulness  in  Nestorianism — 
as  we  saw  may  have  been  the  case,^ — its  extreme  opposite 
was  not  excluded  from  the  evangelistic  mission.  Second, 
while  both  Nestorianism  on  the  one  hand  and  Mono- 
physitism  on  the  other  were  anathematised  by  the  orthodox 
Church,  and  the  leading  supporters  of  both  heresies  ex- 
communicated, the  mighty  spirit  of  the  gospel,  which  is 
larger  than  all  sects  and  creeds,  was  working  through  them 
for  the  extension  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  If  we  may 
apply  to  these  two  bodies  the  great  test  "  by  their  fruits 
ye  shall  know  them,"  we  shall  come  to  the  delightful  con- 
clusion that  "  the  root  of  the  matter  "  was  in  both  of  them, 
although  the  good  men  who  led  the  dominant  Church  were 
unhappily  not  enlightened  or  liberal  enough  to  perceive  it. 
When  John  returned  from  his  missionary  activities,  which 
had  been  honoured  so  highly  in  their  success,  he  was  made 
Monophysite  bishop  of  Ephesus.  He  suffered  imprison- 
ment during  the  persecution  under  Justin  in  the  year  571. 
There  will  be  a  peculiar  interest  in  reading  his  narrative 
when  we  consider  his  statement  that  "  most  of  these  his- 
tories were  written  at  the  very  time  when  the  persecutions 
were  going  on."  .  .  .  He  says,  "  it  was  even  necessary 
that  friends  should  remove  the  leaves  on  which  these 
chapters  are  inscribed,  and  every  other  particle  of  writing, 
and  conceal  them  in  various  places,  where  they  sometimes 
remained  for  two  or  three  years."  ^  Passing  over  a  number 
of  obscure  writers,  we  come  to  Jacob  of  Edessa,  the  most 
famous  Monophysite  writer  at  the  end  of  the  seventh 
century.  Dr.  Wright  says,  "  In  the  literature  of  his  country 
1  See  p.  480.  ^  Mist.  Eccl.  (trans,  by  Payne  Smith),  p.  168. 


508  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Jacob  holds  much  the  same  place  as  Jerome  among  the 
Latin  Fathers.  He  was,  for  his  time,  a  man  of  great 
culture  and  wide  reading,  being  familiar  with  Greek 
and  with  older  Syriac  writers."^  His  writings  comprise 
commentaries,  liturgical  compositions,  history,  philosophy, 
grammar.  Unfortunately  Jacob's  chronicle,  which  would 
have  been  of  great  value  as  a  continuation  of  Eusebius  down 
to  his  own  time,  has  been  lost.  In  his  Syriac  grammar  he 
used  a  device  he  had  invented,  consisting  of  vowel  signs  to 
be  written  on  a  line  with  and  between  the  consonants,  after 
the  European  pattern  of  writing. 

Thus  far  Syrian  literature  has  chiefly  flourished  among 
the  Jacobites,  The  seventh  and  eighth  century  saw 
more  Nestorian  writers  —  Babhai  the  elder,  a  prolific 
writer  credited  with  the  authorship  of  eighty-three  or 
eighty-four  works,  including  a  commentary  on  the  whole 
Bible;  Isho-yabh  of  Gedhala,  author  of  commentaries, 
histories,  and  homilies ;  Sahdona,  who  wrote  two  volumes 
on  the  monastic  life ;  and  many  others,  among  the  most 
famous  of  whom  was  Abraham  the  Lame,  who  wrote  a  book 
of  exhortations,  discourses  on  repentance,  etc.  In  the 
ninth  century  the  products  of  Syrian  literature  are  more 
scarce,  though  some  of  them  are  historically  important. 
One  of  the  most  valuable  was  Dionysius  of  Tell  Mahre's 
great  work,  his  Annals,  while  Thomas 'of  Marga,  whose 
acquaintance  we  have  already  made,^  belongs  to  this 
period.  The  eleventh  century  is  meagrely  represented  by 
Syrian  literature  ;  but  in  the  twelfth  we  reach  the  famous 
Jacobite  writer,  Dionysius  Bar  Salibi,  created  bishop  of 
Mar'ash  in  1145.  He  left  commentaries  on  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  giving  a  material  or  literal,  and  a  spiritual 
or  mystical  explanation  of  each  book ;  a  compendium  of 
theology  ;  and  many  other  works.  In  tlie  next  century  we 
come  to  the  learned  historian  Bar  Hebrttius,  who  was  born 
in  the  year  1226.  During  his  youth  he  had  studied  Greek, 
Arabic,  rhetoric,  and  medicine.  In  1253  he  became  bishop 
of  Aleppo;  he  died  in  the  year  1286.     His  Ecclesiastical 

^  Hist.  Syr.  Literature,  p.  143.  '^  See  p.  484. 


LATER  NESTORIANS,  CHALD.EANS,  AND  JACOBITES      509 

Chronicle,  written  iu  the  simple  style  of  a  man  of  culture, 
which  contrasts  pleasantly  with  the  swollen  verbosity  of 
so  many  Oriental  writers  of  the  later  period,  is  a  valuable 
source  of  information  for  the  historical  writer  in  the 
present  day.  Bar  Hebrseus  was  a  Jacobite.  The  most 
prominent  Nestorian  writer  of  the  same  period  is  Abdh- 
isho  bar  Berikha,  who  died  in  the  year  1318.  His  chief 
work  is  a  theological  treatise  called  Marganitha  {i.e. 
"  The  Pearl  "),  written  in  the  year  1298.  The  author  him- 
self translated  it  into  Arabic.  Mai  has  edited  it  with  a 
Latin  translation,  and  Badger  has  given  an  English  trans- 
lation in  his  work  on  the  Nestorians.^  Abdh-isho  pro- 
duced a  number  of  other  works,  among  which  is  his 
Paradise  of  Eden,  a  collection  of  fifty  theological  poems. 

^  The  Nestorians,  ii.  p.  380  flf. 


CHAPTER    IV 

THE  NESTORIANS  OF  THE  FAR  EAST 

Asseman,  Biblioth.  Orient,  tome  iv. ;  Geddes,  History  of  the  Church  oj 
Malabar,  1694  ;  Hough,  History  of  Christianity  in  India,  vol.  i., 
1839  ;  Rae,  The  Syrian  Church  in  India,  1892. 

The  remarkable  enterprise  of  the  Syrian  missions  promoted 
by  the  impulse  of  the  Nestorian  movement  is  registered  in 
the  scattering  of  metropolitan  sees  over  a  vast  area  of 
Central  and  Eastern  Asia.  Impelled  by  two  forces,  the 
persecution  of  the  orthodox  Church  in  combination  with 
the  Byzantine  Empire  which  drove  them  into  exile,  and  the 
zeal  for  spreading  the  gospel  which  converted  their  banish- 
ment into  a  benediction,  the  Nestorians  went  much  further 
than  was  necessary  merely  to  secure  immunity  from 
molestation ;  and  wherever  they  went  they  planted  the 
standard  of  the  cross.  So  we  find  metropolitan  bishoprics 
in  Syria,  Armenia,  and  Arabia  ;  at  Elam,  Nisibis,  Bethgerma, 
and  Carach  in  Persia  ;  at  Halavan  or  Halach  on  the  confines 
of  Media;  at  Mara  in  Korassan;  at  Hara  in  Camboya;  at  Eaja 
and  Tarbistan  on  the  Caspian ;  at  Dailen,  Samarcand,  and 
Mavaralnabar ;  at  Tauket  or  Taugut — a  country  of  Great 
Tartary ;  in  Casgar,  in  Turkistan,  in  India,  in  China. 
From  many  of  these  centres  all  traces  of  ancient  Chris- 
tianity have  long  since  disappeared,  swept  away  in  the 
deluge  of  Mongolian  invasions,  stamped  out  by  Moham- 
medan tyranny,  or,  if  spared  for  a  time,  generally  only  left  to 
perish  in  crass  ignorance  and  spiritual  inanition.  But  in 
some  few  places  it  still  lives  on  among  numerous  adherents. 
The  most  important  of  the  old  Syrian  churches  existing 
in  our  own  day  is  the  community  of  ancient  Christians 

510 


THE   NESTORIANS    OF    THE    FAR    EAST  511 

consisting  of  400,000  people  inhabiting  the  mountain 
slopes  and  valleys  and  coast  of  Malabar,  the  most  enlight- 
ened of  whom  live  at  Travancoie.  Local  tradition  assigns 
the  origin  of  this  Indian  Church  to  St.  Thomas  the  Apostle, 
who  is  said  to  have  "  landed  at  Malankara,  an  island  in  the 
lagoon  near  Crangamore,  preached  to  the  natives  and 
baptised  many  converts."  ^  According  to  the  legends  of  the 
land,  he  planted  seven  churches  and  ordained  two  priests 
in  this  district,  converted  the  king  and  all  the  people  of 
Mailapore,  went  on  to  China  and  was  there  equally  success- 
ful, and  returned  to  Mailapore,  where  he  roused  the  jealousy 
of  the  Brahmins,  who  excited  the  people  to  stone  him, 
after  which  one  of  them  pierced  him  with  a  lance.  When 
these  parts  were  discovered  to  Europe  by  Portuguese 
adventurers  in  the  year  1517,  among  other  ruins  and  relics 
the  remains  of  a  chapel  were  seen,  digging  beneath  which 
the  travellers  found  some  bones,  which  they  identified  as 
undoubtedly  the  relics  of  the  apostle  on  account  of  their 
superior  whiteness. 

Turning  from  local  legend,  the  late  origin  of  which 
must  be  admitted  since  we  have  no  traces  of  its  antiquity, 
and  it  can  be  accounted  for  apart  from  tradition,  as  we 
shall  see  in  proceeding  with  the  story,  when  we  come  to 
the  literary  records.  Here  we  have  the  earliest  account  of 
St.  Thomas's  mission  to  India  in  the  Acts  of  Judas  Thomas, 
previously  referred  to,^  which  belongs  to  the  third,  or  even 
the  fourth  century,  written  by  a  man  named  Leucius,  the 
author  of  several  apocryphal  "  Acts."  This  work  tells  us 
that  in  the  division  of  districts  among  the  apostles  India 
fell  to  the  lot  of  Thomas.  He  was  unwilling  to  go  so  far 
on  so  hazardous  a  mission.  Then  Christ  appeared  to  him  in 
a  vision,  encouraging  him  with  a  promise  to  be  with  him. 
Thomas  remaining  obstinate  and  even  growing  angry,  Christ 
sold  him  to  an  Indian  merchant  as  a  slave  carpenter. 
Arriving  in  India  after  fantastic  scenes  by  the  way,  Thomas 
was  introduced  to  the  King  Gundaphorus.  When  this  king 
learnt  what  his  trade  was,  he  gave  him  money  with  which 
*  Rae,  The  Syrian  Church  in  India,  p.  15.  ^  p_  474^ 


512     THE  GREEK  AND  EASTERN  CHURCHES 

to  build  a  palace.  Several  times  the  apostle  sent  for 
more  money,  describing  to  the  king  the  progress  of  his 
work  from  walls  to  roof;  but  he  was  spending  all  the 
money  he  got  on  widows  and  orphans  and  other  needy 
folk.  So  when  Gundaphorus  came  to  take  possession  of 
his  palace  no  palace  was  to  be  seen.  Thomas's  friends  told 
him  of  the  Apostle's  charities  and  of  the  ascetic  living  of  the 
holy  man.  "  The  king  having  heard  this,  stroked  his  face 
with  his  hands,  shaking  his  head  for  a  long  time."  He 
was  about  to  kill  both  Thomas  and  the  merchant,  flaying 
and  burning  them,  when  his  brother  died  and  went  to 
heaven,  where  he  saw  a  palace,  which  he  was  told  by 
the  angels  Thomas  had  built  for  the  king.  Coming  back 
to  life  while  his  body  was  being  put  in  the  burial  robe,  th3 
prince  informed  the  astonished  monarch  of  what  he  had 
learnt  in  the  world  above.  The  result  was  the  conversion 
of  king  and  people.  After  the  fourth  century  the  con- 
nection of  Thomas  with  India  was  widely  accepted  both  in 
the  Eastern  and  in  the  Western  Churches.^ 

We  have  here  a  double  confusion,  first  in  the  person  of 
the  missionary  and  then  in  the  country.  There  are  two 
Thomases  and  several  Indias.  Centuries  later,  a  Nestorian 
missionary  named  Thomas  went  to  India,  and  his  mission 
has  been  transferred  to  the  credit  of  the  apostle ;  then  the 
word  "  India "  was  used  in  early  times  very  vaguely  for 
the  countries  about  the  south  of  the  Red  Sea  and  the 
Persian  Gulf — Abyssinia,  Southern  Arabia,  perhaps  also 
Southern  Persia.^  The  orthodox  tradition  of  the  life  of 
Thomas  assigns    Parthia    as    his    district.^     According   to 

^  e.g.  Jerome,  Epis.  70. 

2  Harnack  holds  that  the  reference  in  the  Acts  of  Thomas  is  to  "  the 
North-West  Territory  of  our  modern  India"  (Expansion  of  Christianity, 
vol.  ii.  p.  299). 

*  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  1  ;  cf.  Clementine  Recognitions,  ix.  29,  and 
Socrates,  Hist.  Eccl.  i.  19.  According  to  Rufinus,  Hist.  Eccl.  ii.  5,  and 
Socrates,  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  8,  he  was  buried  at  Edessa.  The  Roman  Martyr- 
ology  reconciles  the  two  stories  in  a  measure  by  bringiug  the  apostle's  boues 
from  India  to  Edessa,  whence  they  are  conveyed  by  Crusaders  to  Ortona  in 
Italy.  According  to  Clement  of  Alexandria,  he  died  a  natural  death,  Strom,. 
iv.  9,  73.     See  Hastings'  Diet.  Bihle,  article  "Thomas." 


THE   NESTORIANS    OF    THE    FAR    EAST  513 

Eusebius,  another  apostle,  Bartholomew,  had  preached  to  the 
Indians.'^  But  it  seems  not  unlikely  that  the  historian  was 
misled  by  the  name  of  the  Sindians  in  the  region  of  the 
Bosphorus,  over  whom  kings  of  the  house  of  Ptolemy 
ruled,  because  Bartliolomew's  traditional  field  of  labour  was 
the  district  of  the  Bosphorus. 

We  have  more  definite  information  about  Pantsenus, 
the  head  of  the  theological  school  at  Alexandria,  who  gave 
up  his  pleasant  work  in  that  centre  of  culture  and  luxury 
to  go  as  a  missionary  to  "  India."  ^  Eusebius  identifies  this 
"  India  "  with  the  scene  of  Bartholomew's  activity.  That, 
however,  is  most  improbable,  if  the  locality  assigned  to  the 
apostle  is  correct.  Since  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
name  is  "  India  "  in  this  case,  there  is  here  no  possibihty 
of  confusion  with  the  Sindians.  But  the  question  is  what 
"  India  "  ?  Eusebius  tells  us  that  Pantsenus  found  a  copy 
of  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hehrews,  which  he  calls  "  the 
Gospel  according  to  Matthew,"  written  "in  the  Hebrew 
language."  Therefore  there  must  have  been  Christians 
in  the  place  before  him,  and  in  all  probability  these 
were  Jewish  Christians.  The  Jews  travelled  far  in  their 
trading  journeys,  and  it  is  quite  possible  that  this  distant 
Christian  movement  was  in  the  country  we  now  know  as 
India.  On  the  other  hand,  we  have  no  definite  trace  of 
Christianity  there  before  the  arrival  of  the  Nestorians.  It 
is  therefore  more  probable  Pantsenus's  "  India "  was  one 
of  those  parts  nearer  to  Egypt  to  wbich  the  name  was 
sometimes   given. 

It  is  also  conceivable  that  natives  of  India  learnt  about 
Christianity  through  their  own  visits  to  Alexandria, 
and  carried  the  gospel  back  to  their  country  on  their 
return  home.  Among  the  many  nationalities  represented 
in  that  cosmopolitan  centre  of  trade  much  earlier  than  this 
were  people  who  bore  the  name  "  Indian."  Dion  Cassius, 
whose  date  is  about  a.d.  100,  writes  of  Ethiopians,  Arabians, 
Bactrians,    Scythians,    Persians,   and    Indians    flocking    to 

^  Hist.  Ecd.  V.  10. 

'  Ibid. ;  also  Jerome,  De  vir.  ill.  36. 

33 


514  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Alexandria.^       The    order    in    which    these    names    stand 
sufizests  that  the  Indians  who  come  last  were  from   the 
most  remotely  eastern  of  all   the  nationalities  mentioned, 
and  since   tliey  follow  the  Persians  we  should  infer  that 
their  country  was  farther  off  than  Persia.      If  we  could  be 
sure  of  Jerome's  information  and  accuracy,  we  should  have 
a  clear  proof  that  India  proper  was  the  country  to  which 
Pantienus  went,  for  he  says  in  his  letter  to   Magnus,  an 
orator  at  Eome,  "  Pantsenus,  a   philosopher   of   the   Stoic 
school," — he  had  been  a  Stoic  previous  to  his  conversion  to 
Christianity,- — "  was  on  account  of  his  great  reputation  for 
learning  sent  by  Demetrius,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  to  India 
to  preach  Christ  to  the  Brahmins  and  philosophers  there." ^ 
It  would  be  very  interesting  to  think  that  a  man  who  had 
passed  from  Greek   philosophy   to    Christianity  had  been 
selected  as  a  missionary  to  the  Indian  Brahmins  and  had 
actually  attempted  the  conversion  of  the  caste  which  our 
missionaries    find  almost    unapproachable,    though    appar- 
ently without  satisfactory  results,  or  he  would  hardly  have 
abandoned  the  work  to  resume  his  chair  at  the  Alexandrian 
theological  school.     But  unfortunately  Jerome  is  notoriously 
inaccurate,  being  often   proved  guilty  of  rushing  at  con- 
clusions on  insufficient  evidence,  and  filling  in  the  lacunar 
of  information  with  the  creations  of  imagination,  though 
no  doubt  these  are  shaped  with  regard  to  certain  degrees 
of  verisimilitude.      We  must  not  attach  much  weight  to 
his  assertions  when  they  go  beyond   Eusebius  and  other 
earlier  writers.     It  would  be  enough  that  Jerome  knew  that 
Pantienus  had  been  sent  to  some  place  called  "  India,"  for  him 
to  conclude  as  a  matter  of  course  that  the  Stoic  had  gone 
to  evangelise  the  Brahmins.      His  assertion  may  be  taken, 
however,  as  valuable  to  a  certain  extent.      It  shows  that 
early  in  the  fifth  century  it  was  believable  to  a  scholarly 
man  with  large  knowledge  of  the  world,  that  India  itself 
might  have  been  visited  by  a  Christian  missionary  before 
the  end   of    the   second   century.      Therefore   in  Jerome's 

^  Smith,  Diet.  Christ.  Biog.  vol.  iv.  p.  182'",  note  a. 
2  Epixl.  In.x. 


THE    NESTORIANS    OF    THE    FAR    EAST  515 

day  at  latest  our  India  was  known  and  not  inaccessible. 
This  is  probable  on  other  grounds.  Moreover,  Indian  in- 
fluences are  to  be  traced  in  Alexandrian  philosophy  and  in 
Christian  Gnosticism.  There  is  no  insuperable  difficulty 
in  believing  that  the  gospel  may  have  readied  the  country 
before  the  end  of  the  second  century.  Still,  even  if  we 
could  settle  this  question  in  the  affirmative,  the  answer 
would  not  be  of  much  value.  We  can  see  no  signs  of  any 
results  of  the  early  mission ;  even  if  this  did  exist  it  would 
appear  to  have  been  abortive.  Pantsenus's  return  and 
resumption  of  his  old  work,  as  already  indicated,  point  to 
an  unsatisfactory  ending  to  the  ambitious  project.  A 
mission  projected  in  this  spasmodic  way  is  not  likely  to  be 
successful.  It  is  heroic  to  attack  the  most  impregnable 
fortress  if  the  attempt  is  adequate  to  the  aim ;  otherwise 
it  is  Quixotic. 

Over  against  Jerome's  authority  in  favour  of  India 
proper — so  unreliable  in  itself — we  have  not  only  to  set 
the  loose  way  in  which  the  name  was  commonly  used, 
but  also  the  absence  of  all  real  evidence  in  the  land 
itself  previous  to  the  Nestorian  period.  The  local  tradition 
goes  back  to  St.  Thomas,  passing  over  Pantsenus  in  silence. 
That  may  be  explicalDle  on  the  ground  that  the  passion  for 
an  apostolic  foundation  was  common  in  the  churches,  while 
the  visit  of  an  unsuccessful  missionary  might  be  mercifully 
forgotten.  Still,  we  have  no  evidence  to  point  to  the 
existence  of  any  Christian  Church  in  India  at  this  early 
period,  and  that  is  the  real  question  with  which  we  are 
concerned,  whatever  may  have  been  the  objective  of  the 
Alexandrian  scholar's  expedition.  Even  Dion  Chrysostom's 
Indians  may  have  been  the  people  just  to  the  east  of 
Persia,  in  the  country  since  known  as  Beluchistan — very 
far  from  the  Indian  Christians  discovered  in  later  times, 
whose  home  is  in  the  south ;  if  Panttenus  did  go  to  that 
country,  north  of  the  Arabian  Sea,  he  would  have  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  founding  of  the  Church  in 
Travancore. 

Among  the  signatories  at  the  Nicene  Council  we  have 


516  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

the  name  of  "  John  of  Persia  in  all  Persia  and  great  India." 
The  vastness  of  the  area  here  assigned  to  John  is  such  that 
he  could  not  have  exercised  supervision  over  it,  and 
we  must  take  the  vague  phrase  to  mean  that  whatever 
Christians  there  were  in  these  parts  of  the  East  were 
supposed  to  be  under  his  authority.  This  does  not  carry 
the  assertion  that  there  were  Christians  at  the  time  in 
India,  much  less  that  it  was  our  India,  although  the  word 
"  great,"  whicli  does  not  seem  to  have  had  a  definite 
geographical  meaning  when  applied  to  India,  suggests  an 
indefinitely  large  region. 

Towards  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  we  have  the 
remarkable  story  of  Frumentius  recorded  by  Eufinus,  who 
associates  it  with  "  India  "  ;  ^  but  there  is  no  doubt  that  he 
means  Abyssinia.  To  this  therefore  we  must  return  later 
on,  meanwhile  dismissing  it  as  having  no  connection  with 
Indian  Christianity. 

About  the  same  time  we  come  to  "  Theophilus  the 
Indian."  According  to  Philostorgius,  he  was  an  Arian  who 
went  to  India  to  spread  the  doctrine  of  his  party  there. 
But  the  Arian  historian  obliges  us  by  adding  "  that  these 
Indians  are  now  called  Homeritae,  instead  of  their  old  name 
of  Saboeans,  which  they  received  from  the  city  of  Saba,  the 
chief  city  of  the  whole  nation."  ^  A  little  further  on  he 
says  that  "  Constantius  sent  ambassadors  to  those  who  were 
formerly  called  Sabreans,  but  are  now  known  as  Homeritge, 
a  tribe  which  is  descended  from  Abraham  by  Keturah." 
He  adds  that  the  territory  which  they  inhabit  is  called  by 
the  Greeks  "Arabia  Magna"  and  "Arabia  Felix." ^  He 
identifies  Saba  with  the  Sheba  whose  queen  came  to  see 
Solomon.  Here  then  we  have  the  clearest  possible  evidence 
that  the  name  "  India  "  was  used  for  South  Arabia.  How- 
ever, while  this  plainly  shows  that  Theophilus  had  nothing 
to  do  with  our  India,  his  story  is  not  devoid  of  interest  on 
its  own  account. 

Thus,  when  we  examine  the  various  successive  references 

^  Ecd.  Hist.  ii.  9-14.  «  Philostorgius,  Hist.  Eccl.  ii.  6. 

» Ibid.  iii.  4. 


THE   NESTORIANS    OF    THE    FAR    EAST  517 

to  early  Christian  associations  with  India,  they  all  melt  into 
vagueness,  or  indicate  some  other  region  than  that  of  the 
present  Cln-istians  of  St.  Tliomas.  We  have  here  six 
persons  who  are  apparently  carrying  on  Christian  work  in 
India,  and  yet  to  none  of  them  can  we  assign  our  present 
India  as  the  scene  of  their  labours.  Thomas,  Bartholomew, 
Pantgenus,  John  of  the  large  episcopate,  Frumentius,Theo- 
philus — all  of  these  men,  when  their  Indian  claims  are 
examined,  seem  to  be  associated  with  other  regions.  South 
,  Arabia,  Abyssinia,  the  neighbourhood  of  the  Bosphorus,  the 
country  immediately  east  of  Persia,  all  these  parts  have 
borne  the  name  or  have  been  mistaken  for  India,  and  it  is 
among  them  that  the  work  of  the  early  missionaries  is 
distributed.  Of  course  it  cannot  be  denied  that  Christianity 
may  have  reached  India  proper,  or  at  all  events  the  South 
India  of  the  later  Church,  at  an  earlier  time  than  we 
know.  That  is  another  matter.  We  have  no  evidence  to 
indicate  that  it  was  so,  and  all  our  available  evidence 
points  in  other  directions.  There  we  must  leave  the 
question. 

We  come  out  of  these  mists  of  legend  into  clear 
daylight  in  the  Nestorian  period.  There  is  no  doubt  that 
the  great  wave  of  missionary  enthusiasm  that  swept  over 
so  large  a  part  of  Central  Asia  poured  down  into  Southern 
India,  or,  more  probably,  came  direct  across  the  sea  to  the 
region  of  Travancore,  then  passed  over  to  Ceylon,  and 
ultimately  reached  China.  The  ancient  Christian  com- 
munity in  India  is  known  as  the  "  Syrian  Church  "  of  India. 
This  name  should  not  lead  us  to  suppose  that  it  is  composed 
of  Syrian  colonists.  Its  members  consist  of  the  native 
people  of  their  province.  But  the  name  reminds  us  that 
their  Christianity  sprang  from  the  activity  of  the  Syrian 
Church  in  these  parts.  The  consequences  of  its  origin  are 
seen  in  many  customs,  notably  in  the  use  of  the  Syrian 
liturgies.  Its  theology  is  Nestorian,  after  the  pattern  of 
Syrian  Nestorianism. 

The  earliest  distinct  witness  to  the  existence  of  the 
Syrian  Christian  in  India  is  afforded  by  the  Alexandrian 


518  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

moichaut  Cosmas,  who  was  surnamed  Indicopleustes  on 
account  of  the  fame  of  his  voyage  in  the  Indian  seas  early 
in  the  sixth  century.  He  wrote  a  curious  book,  full  of 
strange  fancies,  entitled  Universal  Christian  Topography. 
In  this  work  Cosmas  states  that  he  found  a  church  with 
clergy  and  a  congregation  in  Ceylon,  and  also  Christians 
"  in  the  land  called  Malabar,  where  the  pepper  grows."  At 
Caliana — the  coast  country  south  of  Bombay — there  was 
a  bishop  who  held  his  appointment  from  Persia.  Eeturning 
to  Ceylon,  Cosmas  adds,  "  The  island  hath  also  a  church  of 
Persian  Christians  who  have  settled  there  from  Persia,  and 
a  deacon,  and  all  the  apparatus  of  public  worship."  ^  If 
this  is  correct,  we  must  regard  the  Malabar  Church  as  in 
the  first  place  consisting  of  refugees  from  persecution  in 
Persia,  like  the  Huguenots  in  England  and  the  Pilgrim 
Fathers  in  America.  But  the  Ceylon  refugees  never 
appear  to  have  associated  with  the  natives,  and  conse- 
quently their  Church  melted  away  and  in  course  of 
time  disappeared.  Cosmas  was  himself  a  Nestorian 
and  a  friend  of  the  catholicos  in  Persia.  He  would 
therefore  look  on  the  co-religionists  whom  he  had  dis- 
covered to  his  surprise  in  these  remote  parts  with  peculiar 
interest.  The  Persian  navigators  who  came  into  com- 
munication with  the  Malabar  coast  travelled  further 
and  carried  the  gospel  to  the  Coromandel  coast,  and  so 
were  brought  into  contact  with  the  great  empire  of  the 
Pallavas. 

While  satisfactory  documentary  evidence  of  the  origin 
of  Christianity  in  these  parts  is  lacking,  this  is  partly 
made  up  for  by  the  irrefragable  testimony  of  monuments. 
In  the  year  1547  a  cross  with  an  inscription  in  Pahlavi, 
the  language  of  the  Persian  Empire  at  the  time  of  the 
Sassanian  dynasty,  was  found  on  the  hill  now  known  as 
St.  Thomas's  Mount  at  Mailapore,  the  chief  town  of  this 
district.  The  date  assigned  to  it  is  the  seventh  or  at 
latest  the  eighth  century.  There  is  a  similar  cross  with 
the  same  inscription  in  a  church  at  Cottayam  in  North 
^  Quoted  in  Rae's  The  Syrian  Church  in  India,  p.  115. 


THE    NESTORIANS    OF    THE    FAR    EAST  519 

Travancore.  A  translation  of  the  inscription  is  as 
follows : — 

"  In  punishment  by  the  cross  (was)  the  suffering  of  this  One ; 
He  who  is  the  true  Christ,  and  God  alone,  and  Guide  ever  jiure."  ^ 

This  inscription  is  doubly  important.  In  the  first  place, 
the  use  of  the  Pahlavi  language  in  which  it  is  composed  is 
an  unmistakable  testimony  to  the  antiquity  of  Christianity 
in  the  places  where  the  crosses  are  set  up,  helping  us  to 
fix  an  approximate  date  for  them.  In  the  second  place, 
the  singular  wording  of  the  inscription  contains  an  apparent 
statement  of  Nestorian  doctrine.  The  second  line  seems 
to  refer  to  the  Trinity.  The  order  in  which  the  Three 
Persons  occur  is  not  so  very  surprising  when  we  consider 
that  it  is  the  order  of  St.  Paul's  doxology.  But  the  couplet 
appears  to  identify  all  Three  Persons  of  the  Trinity  as 
present  in  the  Incarnation  and  as  therefore  present  also  at 
the  crucifixion.  The  same  idea  is  found  in  later  Nestorian 
documents;  it  was  expressly  condemned  in  the  synod 
of  Diamper  (a.d.  1599).  The  doctrine  thus  expressed 
comes  very  near  to  Patripassianism ;  but  then  it  must  be 
remembered  that,  as  held  by  Nestorians,  who  made  a  sharp 
distinction  between  the  two  natures  in  Christ,  it  did  not 
involve  the  suffering  of  the  Divine  Persons  in  the  way  in 
which  the  union  of  the  natures  would  imply.  It  was  the 
human  nature  that  was  tortured  on  the  cross  and  that 
died.  With  this  view  it  was  possible  to  think  of  the 
Divine  nature  in  Christ  as  consisting  of  the  whole  Godhead, 
and  yet  not  be  Patripassian. 

There  is  a  second  cross  in  the  old  church  at  Cotta- 
yam — with  a  modification  of  the  curious  inscription 
— making  three  of  these  crosses  in  all ;  but  this  is 
assigned  to  the  tenth  century.  A  panel  in  the  same 
slab    of    stone,  similar    in   shape    and   decoration   to  that 

1  The  Indian  Antiquary,  vol.  iii.,  1874,  pp.  308-316,  article  by  A.  C. 
Burnell,  Ph.D.,  of  the  Madras  Civil  Service,  on  "Some  Pahlavi  Inscriptions 
ill  South  India,"  quoted  by  Rae  in  notes  to  chapter  ix.  p.  370.  But  tlieie 
is  some  doubt  as  to  the  correctness  of  this  translation. 


520  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

containing  the  cross,  has  on  each  side  of  it  the  figure  of  a 
peacock.  Here  we  first  meet  with  the  mysterious  symbol 
associated  with  St.  Thomas  in  the  later  times  of  the  Syrian 
Church  in  India.  Various  fantastic  legends  given  by 
successive  travellers — by  Marco  Polo,  by  John  do  Marig- 
nolli,  and  lastly  by  Duarte  Barbosa  as  late  as  the  sixteenth 
century — bring  peacocks  in  some  way  into  the  story  of 
the  apostle.  Evidently  the  symbolism  has  been  borrowed 
from  the  mythology  of  the  neighbouring  Hindu  temple, 
the  Purana  of  which  tells  how  Siva's  wife  appeared  to  her 
lord  in  the  form  of  a  peafowl,  the  name  of  which  in 
Sanscrit  is  mayil.  This  is  given  as  an  explanation  of  the 
name  Mailapore,  Mayil-a-pur — "  Peacock-town." 

While  this  church  at  Mailapore  declined  and  died  out, 
the  church  at  Malabar  continued  to  flourish,  assimilating 
the  native  population,  and  obtaining  political  status  and 
recognised  rights  of  self-government.  These  are  registered 
in  two  copperplate  charters,  one  of  the  date  a.d.  774, 
recording  a  grant  by  King  Vira  Eaghava  Chakravarti  to 
Irair  Corthan  of  Crangamore  as  the  representative  of  the 
Christian  community,  making  him  sovereign  merchant  of 
Kerala;  the  other  granted  to  the  Syrians  of  St.  Thomas, 
about  the  year  824,  with  the  sanction  of  King  Sthanu's 
palace-major,  confirming  a  gift  of  land  to  Muruvan  Sapor 
Iso  and  the  Tarasa  Church.  Further  intercommunication 
between  State  and  Church  and  confirmation  of  the  Church's 
rights  followed.  In  the  year  745,  according  to  the  local 
tradition,  Knaye  Thomas,  or  Thomas  of  Cana,  came  with 
a  fresh  band  of  emigrants  from  Bagdad,  Nineveh,  and 
Jerusalem.  Some  have  attributed  the  name  "Christians 
of  St.  Thomas  "  to  a  confusion  of  this  leader  of  the  more 
recent  additions  to  the  Church  with  the  Apostle  Thomas. 
These  new-comers  appear  to  have  settled  to  the  south  of 
the  original  Syrian  community.  The  Christian  Church 
in  India  is  thus  divided  into  two  portions,  a  northern 
and  a  southern.  The  latter  consists  of  people  of  fairer 
complexion  than  their  brotln-en  to  the  north.  Yet  another 
body  of  refugees  appeared  in  the  year   822   led  by  two 


THE   NESTORIANS    OF    THE    FAR    EAST  521 

Nestorian  Persians,  Mar  Sapor  and  Mar  Perog,  the  former 
of  whom  has  been  identified  with  the  Sapor  to  whom  the 
grant  of  land  was  made  as  recorded  in  the  copperplate. 
The  Syrian  Christians  were  now  important  people  in 
Malabar,  both  socially  and  politically.  But  before  long 
their  Church  declined  in  missionary  fervour  and  religious 
vitality.  It  has  never  developed  any  intellectual  energy 
or  made  any  contribution  to  theology. 

When  Cheraman  Perumal,  the  last  emperor  of  Kerala, 
became  a  Mohammedan  and  died  while  on  a  visit  to  Arabia, 
the  country  came  under  Mussulman  rule.  We  now  reach 
an  almost  blank  period  of  five  hundred  years  in  the  history 
of  the  Syrian  Church  in  India,  during  which,  however, 
the  Christians  were  so  powerful  that  at  one  time  they  had 
their  own  kings.  Subsequently  they  came  under  the 
government  of  Cochin.  By  this  time  the  Church  had 
become  spiritually  torpid.  The  ceremonies  were  duly 
performed.  As  far  as  we  can  see,  they  were  the  chief 
functions  of  religion.  Meanwhile  the  Christians  lived  as  a 
superior  close  caste,  so  completely  had  their  old  missionary 
zeal  died  out.  They  even  came  to  imitate  the  Hindoos  in 
caste  regulations  of  diet  and  avoidance  of  pollution. 

The  next  period  in  the  history  of  Christianity  in  India 
is  that  of  the  Roman  Catholic  missions  which  resulted  from 
the  great  religious  revival  in  the  Western  Church  during 
the  thirteenth  century,  and  were  carried  on  by  those 
wonderful  democratic  missionary  bodies,  the  Franciscans  and 
the  Dominicans.  During  the  years  1321  to  1323,  Jordanus, 
a  Frenchman  of  the  Dominican  order,  the  author  of  the 
Mirdbilia,  was  in  Malabar.  Thence  he  wrote  a  circular  letter 
to  his  brethren  of  the  two  orders  of  Friars,  commending 
India  as  a  sphere  for  missionary  activity.  Nothing  is  more 
interesting  in  this  story  than  the  combination  abroad  of 
the  orders  the  members  of  which  were  rivals  at  home. 
Jordanus  the  Dominican  was  accompanied  by  four  Francis- 
cans when  he  embarked  for  Quilon.  A  storm  drove  them 
on  the  island  of  Salsette,  near  Tana,  where  they  were 
kindly  received  by  the  Nestorian  Christians.     Describing 


522  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

his  experiences  in  his  second  letter,  Jordanus  says  that 
while  he  was  away  from  his  four  companions  in  this  place, 
on  a  journey  to  Baroch,  they  were  arrested  and  killed  by 
the  Saracens.  This  is  very  significant.  For  the  time 
being,  the  Nestorians  are  living  in  the  same  place  in  peace 
and  safety,  because  they  keep  themselves  to  themselves. 
But  these  Franks,  these  new-comers  who  are  busy 
in  trying  to  make  converts,  cannot  be  endured.  So  the 
missionaries  are  killed,  while  the  Church  is  not  molested. 
Can  we  have  a  plainer  proof  of  the  mournful  fact  that  this 
Church  had  entirely  lost  the  evangelistic  zeal  that  had 
been  the  glory  of  her  founders  ? 

In  his  Mirahilia  Jordanus  describes  his  mission  as 
being  very  successful  in  spite  of  trying  persecutions  and 
perilous  adventures.  His  story  reads  like  St.  Paul's 
chapter  of  autobiography  in  the  Second  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians.  Four  times  he  was  cast  into  prison  by  the 
Saracens ;  how  many  times  he  had  his  hair  plucked  out, 
was  scourged,  was  stoned, "  God  Himself  knoweth,"  he  writes. 
In  the  year  1330,  Pope  John  xxii.  issued  a  bull  to  the 
Christians  of  Quilon,  nominating  Jordanus  bishop  of  that 
place,  and  inviting  the  Nestorians  to  enter  "  the  Christian 
Church."  No  doubt  this  earnest,  active  man  left  some 
lasting  fruits  of  his  heroic  work.  John  de  MarignoUi  found 
a  "  Church  of  St.  George  "  of  the  Latin  communion  in  the 
year  1347.  But  the  greatest  activity  of  the  Latin  Church 
in  India  did  not  begin  till  a  century  later.  This  was  of  a 
very  different  spirit  from  Jordanus's  Christ-like  missionary 
enterprise.  It  was  a  Jesuit  mission  armed  with  the  cruel 
weapons  of  the  Inquisition. 


CHAPTER   V 

LATER    EASTERN   CHRISTIANITY 

Marco  Polo  (trans,  by  Yule,  2nd  edit.) ;  Asseman,  tome  iv. ;  Mo.'^heim, 
Ecclesiastical  History,  vols.  ii.  and  v.  ;  Coleridge,  Life  and  Letter* 
of  St.  Francis  Xavier,  1902  ;  Rae,  Siirian  Churches  in  India, 
1892  ;  Brinkley,  China  ("  Oriental  Series,"  1902) ;  Broonihall, 
The  Chinese  Empire,  1907. 

When  Vasco  de  Gama  rounded  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope, 
he  enlarged  the  world  of  the  Latin  race  and  religion  in 
a  way  almost  comparable  with  the  intliiences  of  Columbus's 
discovery  of  America  on  the  Teutonic  peoples  and  the 
scope  of  Protestantism.  The  rediscovery  of  the  Old  World 
was  only  second  in  importance  to  the  discovery  of  the  New 
World.  In  the  fifteenth  century  the  Turkish  despotism 
sprawling  over  the  wreck  of  the  Byzantine  Empire  became 
a  huge  barrier  between  Asia  and  Europe,  which  shut  off 
the  West  from  intercourse  with  the  East  by  the  old 
overland  road.  What  was  then  needed  was  the  reverse 
of  the  policy  of  later  Europe  in  its  construction  of  the 
Suez  Canal — a  route  to  India  that  would  avoid  the 
Ottoman  territory.  Columbus  had  set  out  to  find  this 
route  by  circunmavigating  the  globe,  when  he  stum])led  on 
a  new  continent  half-way  round,  and  so  surprised  every- 
body by  making  a  much  more  important  discovery.  Vasco 
de  Gama  attained  the  Genoese  enthusiast's  object  in  another 
and  more  effective  way.  He  reached  Asia  by  sailing  round 
Africa.  The  immediate  result  was  the  establishment  of 
the  Portuguese  dominions  in  India. 

The    Portuguese    on    their  arrival    in    India    found  a 
Christian  Church  oppressed  by  Mussulman  tyranny,  which 


524  THE   fJRKRK    AND    EASTEIJN    CHURCHES 

at  once  wclcoinod  tlie  advent  of  a  Christian  power,  in  tlic 
hope  of  securing  its  protection.  Altliongh  the  Syrian 
Church  in  India,  was  Ncstoriau  and  the  European  new- 
comers were  Eoman  Catholics,  for  the  moment  no  ecclesi- 
astical or  doctrinal  differences  were  noticed.  It  was 
enough  that  both  were  Christian  for  the  two  parties  to 
draw  together  in  presence  of  their  common  f  je,  the  infidel. 
The  friendship  was  mutual.  The  Portuguese  were  glad  to 
find  friends  in  a  strange  land,  and  the  Syrian  Christians 
were  grateful  for  the  prospect  of  shelter  from  the  persecu- 
tion they  were  enduring  under  the  Mohammedan  rule, 
[n  the  year  1502  they  presented  a  petition  to  Vasco  de 
Gama  begging  him  to  put  them  under  the  protection  of 
the  King  of  Portugal,  to  whom,  in  sign  of  subjection,  they 
sent  the  old  sceptre  of  their  former  Christian  kings, 
a  silver-mounted  rod  with  three  little  bells,  and  at 
the  same  time  handed  over  the  copper  plates  containing 
their  charters  to  the  Portuguese  authorities.  It  was  not 
a  conquest ;  it  was  a  voluntary,  eager,  grateful  action  like 
that  of  the  Jews  welcoming  Cyrus.  These  simple  people 
little  dreamed  that  what  they  took  for  an  asylum  was 
really  a  prison,  that  their  deliverers  were  to  become  their 
gaolers.  At  first  the  wisdom  of  their  course  seemed  to 
be  amply  justified.  The  most  complete  friendliness  was 
established  between  the  old  inhabitants  and  the  colonists. 
The  Portuguese  were  freely  admitted  to  the  Syrian 
churches,  and  they  attended  amicably.  It  was  only  by 
degrees  that  the  divergencies  from  Eoman  belief  and 
practice  were  noted  and  commented  on.  When  a  change 
of  attitude  on  the  part  of  the  Portuguese  was  brought 
about,  this  was  owing  to  the  importation  of  the  worst 
product  of  Spanish  cruelty — the  Inquisition,  and  that  was 
due  to  the  presence  of  the  Jesuits. 

Nevertheless  the  Jesuits  did  not  come  in  the  first 
instance  as  inquisitors.  Their  expedition  to  India  was 
undertaken  with  a  positive  and  constructive  end  in  view 
— not  correction  of  error,  repression,  persecution ;  but 
evangelisation,  the  spread  of  the  Christian  gospel  among 


LATER    EASTERN    CHRISTIANITY  5 1^5 

Mussnlman  aiul  lioathen  people,  the  extension  of  the  Church 
in  the  East  to  make  up  for  the  large  slice  of  territory  of 
which  the  Eeformation  had  robbed  her  in  the  West.  It 
was  borne  on  a  great  wave  of  enthusiasm.  Its  leader  was 
one  of  the  most  gifted,  devoted,  energetic,  and  successful 
missionaries  the  world  has  ever  seen — Francis  Xavier,  the 
story  of  whose  life  belongs  to  tlio  uimals  of  the  true  saints. 

Francis  Xavier  was  l)()rn  iu  the  year  1506,  the 
youngest  son  of  a  nol)lenian  high  in  the  employ  of  the 
King  of  Aragon.  Wliile  teaching  ])hilosoj)hy  at  the 
university  of  Paris  he  met  Ignatius  Loyola,  then  in  his 
early  dreams  of  the  counter-revolution,  who  gradually 
wrought  the  spell  of  his  fascinating  personality  over  a 
reluctant  scholar,  till  at  last  Xavier  yielded  to  it  and  became 
one  of  the  seven  who  in  the  year  1534  took  the  first 
Jesuit  vow.  The  company  intended  to  go  to  Palestine  in 
order  to  convert  the  Saracens,  and  they  left  Paris  and 
travelled  as  far  as  Venice  with  that  end  in  view.  Their 
further  journey  being  delayed,  Ignatius  set  Xavier  to  work  in 
hospital  nursing.  Then  a  war  that  broke  out  between  the 
Venetian  Eepublic  and  the  Ottoman  Empire  compelled 
the  Jesuits  to  abandon  their  design  of  attempting  work  in 
the  Holy  Land,  and  Xavier  was  now  ordered  to  join  Eodri- 
quez  in  an  Indian  mission.  He  reached  Goa  in  May  1542, 
and  there  commenced  his  famous  missionary  career.  Xavier 
found  the  Syrian  Christians  so  dead  to  the  evangelistic  voca- 
tion of  the  Church,  so  absolutely  exclusive  and  self-contained 
as  a  religious  caste,  keeping  scrupulously  aloof  from  their 
Mohammedan  neighbours,  that  they  regarded  his  efforts  to 
convert  these  people  with  disapproval.  For  instance,  he 
says  that  on  one  occasion,  when  he  was  about  to  baptise 
the  child  of  a  Mussulman,  "  the  people  of  Socotra  began  to 
cry  out  that  Mussulmans  were  unworthy  of  so  great  a 
blessing;  that  they  would  not  let  them  be  baptised, 
however  much  they  deserved  it,  and  that  they  would  not 
permit  any  Mussulman  to  become  a  Christian."  "  Such,'* 
he  adds,  "  is  their  hatred  of  Mussulmans."  ^ 

^  Coleridge,  Life,  and  Letters  of  St.  Francis  Xavier,  vol.  i.  p.  11,9. 


526  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Xavier's  letters  reveul  the  character  of  a  man  of 
saiifiune  temperament  and  affectionate  nature,  a  Christian 
(jf  deep,  fervid  devotion,  true  humility,  and  passionate 
earnestness  for  the  winning  of  souls.  His  biographers 
surround  his  career  with  a  halo  of  miracles ;  yet  in 
his  letters  he  lays  claim  to  no  such  performances, 
a  silence  which  admirers  ascribe  to  modesty.  In  the 
breviary  office  for  his  festival  he  is  said  to  have  en- 
joyed the  miraculous  gift  of  tongues ;  but  his  letters 
show  that  he  had  to  resort  to  an  interpreter  for  com- 
municating with  the  native  population.  These  letters 
bring  us  close  to  the  real  man,  and  help  us  to  form  a  vivid 
picture  of  his  labours.  Xavier  would  go  about  through 
the  streets  ringing  a  bell  and  inviting  the  people — men, 
women,  and  children — to  come  and  hear  him  preach.  The 
following  is  his  own  account  of  his  method :  "  I  used  to 
preach  to  the  people  promiscuously,"  he  says,  "  in  the 
morning,  on  Sundays,  and  on  holy  days.  In  the  afternoon 
I  expounded  the  articles  of  the  creed  to  the  natives,  and 
the  crowd  of  hearers  was  so  great  that  the  church  could 
hardly  contain  them.  I  afterwards  taught  them  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  the  Hail  Mary,  the  Apostles'  Creed,  and 
the  Ten  Commandments  of  the  law  of  God.  On  Sundays 
I  used  to  say  mass  for  the  lepers,  whose  hospital  is  close 
to  the  city,  heard  their  confessions,  etc."^  Xavier 
established  a  college  at  Goa  to  hold  five  hundred  students, 
which  was  partly  supported  by  the  government.  After 
his  first  five  months  in  Goa  he  set  out  with  three  students 
on  a  missionary  journey,  of  which  he  gives  a  full  description 
in  his  letters  to  the  Society  at  home.  Travelling  bare- 
footed, with  a  torn  cassock  and  wearing  a  black  stuff 
hat  on  his  head,  he  visited  the  Paravas,  a  poverty-stricken 
people  of  low  caste,  with  whom  he  spent  fifteen  months. 
Like  our  modern  missionary  he  had  found  the  Brahmin 
almost  hopeless.  Next  he  went  to  Travancore,  which  was 
jmrtly  heathen  and  partly  Mohammedan ;  yet  there  he 
tells  us  that  village  after  village  received  him  with  joy. 

'  Coleridge,  Life  and  Letters  of  St.  Francis  Xavier,  vol.  i.  p.  120. 


LATER    EASTERN    CHRISTIANITY  527 

Subsequently  his  tours  extended  to  Ceylon — to  Malacca — 
to  the  Molucca  group — to  Japan.  At  Kagoshuma,  the 
most  southerly  small  island  of  Japan,  his  converts  were 
threatened  with  death.  Moving  on  to  the  north  he  met 
with  a  better  reception,  though  he  found  his  ascetic  ideal 
not  so  acceptable  here  as  it  had  been  in  India.  Still 
thirsting  for  more  worlds  to  conquer  for  Christ  and  His 
Church,  he  projected  a  visit  to  China,  and  collected  large 
sums  of  money  for  an  extensive  mission  in  the  Celestial 
Empire,  when  he  was  stricken  down  with  fever  while 
on  his  way  thither.  He  died  at  Sanchan,  in  the  forty- 
seventh  year  of  his  age  (a.d.  1552).  The  extraordinary 
amount  of  work  accomplished  by  Xavier  during  so  short 
a  lifetime,  and  the  passionate  enthusiasm  that  was  the 
inspiration  of  it,  have  enshrined  his  name  in  the  hero-roll 
of  the  Church  Universal.  The  story  of  his  fruitful  travel 
from  country  to  country  reads  like  an  echo  of  the  account 
of  St.  Paul's  journeyiugs  in .  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  On 
the  other  hand,  we  must  accept  his  glowing  reports  of  his 
successes  with  caution.  What,  for  instance,  are  we  to 
think  when  we  find  him  writing  in  one  of  his  letters, 
"  In  the  space  of  four  months  I  made  Christians  of  more 
than  10,000"?^  Either  this  is  gross  exaggeration,  or  the 
Christianity  was  very  superficial,  or  we  have  a  miracle 
that  throws  Pentecost  into  the  shade. 

Now  it  was  the  great  missionary  Xavier  who  intro- 
duced the  Inquisition  into  India.  He  did  this  in  the 
burning  earnestness  of  his  zeal,  not  because  he  imagined 
that  he  could  convert  it  into  an  engine  for  forcing  the 
heathen  into  the  Church — any  such  object  was  not  in  its 
province ;  but  because  he  desired  to  have  certain  impedi- 
ments to  the  growth  and  what  he  deemed  the  health  of 
the  Church  removed  out  of  its  way.  This  institution  was 
not  invoked  to  plough  up  fallow  ground ;  it  was  demanded 
in  order  to  remove  rocks  of  offence.  In  a  letter  written 
towards  the  end  of  the  year  1545,  Xavier  begged  the 
King  of  Portugal  to  establish  the  Inquisition  in  order  to 

1  Ihid.  p.  280. 


528  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

check  "  the  Jewish  wickedness  "  that  was  spreading  through 
his  Eastern  dominions.  Fifteen  years  passed  before  the 
eager  missionary's  wish  was  granted.  Xavier  had  died 
eight  years  before  the  terrible  persecuting  Spanish  invention 
appeared  on  the  field  of  his  labours.  Therefore  he  was 
not  called  upon  to  take  part  in  its  cruelty,  and  he  must 
not  be  held  responsible  for  the  awful  consequences  of  his 
mistake.  In  the  year  1560  one  of  the  four  branches  of 
the  Inquisition  was  established  at  Goa.  All  the  inquisitors 
were  nominated  by  the  King  of  Portugal,  and  their 
appointment  was  confirmed  by  the  pope.  Aiming  primarily 
at  the  correction  of  Christians,  it  was  also  used  against 
Jews,  Mohammedans,  and  even  heathen  people.  For, 
while  the  former  were  executed  for  heresy,  many  of  the 
latter  were  punished  for  sorcery.  The  Inquisition  at  Goa 
was  kept  up  till  the  year  1812,  when  it  was  abolished  by 
a  decree  from  the  prince  regent,  Don  Jos^,  at  Eio  Janeiro. 
Long  before  this  it  had  done  its  worst  in  ruining  the 
Portuguese  Indian  possessions. 

The  attitude  of  the  Church  of  Eome  towards  heresy 
was  bound  to  have  grave  effects  on  the  Syrian  Church  in 
India.  In  the  year  1546  the  Franciscans  had  set  up  a 
college  at  Crangamore  with  the  purpose  of  training  priests 
of  the  Eoman  Catholic  faith  to  become  clergy  in  the 
Syrian  Church.  But  it  never  came  sufficiently  into  touch 
with  the  population.  The  Jesuits  did  better  with  their 
college  at  Vaipicotta,  erected  more  than  forty  years  later. 
Still,  the  Syrians  held  to  their  beliefs  and  customs.  Mar 
Abraham,  the  catholicos,  was  accused  on  various  charges 
by  Aleixo  Menezes,  the  papal  "archbishop  of  Goa  and 
primate  of  all  the  Indies."  But  he  declined  to  submit  to 
this  alien  authority.  When  he  died,  in  the  year  1597, 
his  archdeacon,  George,  was  appointed  his  successor  in 
spite  of  the  pope's  prohibition.  This  man  had  informed 
Menezes  that  the  Syrian  Church  had  no  connection  with 
the  pope  of  Eome.  Here  was  material  for  a  pretty  quarrel. 
But  the  races  of  South  India  could  not  be  expected  to 
emulate  Teutonic  independence.     The  Syrian  opposition  to 


LATER   EASTERN    CHRISTIANITY  529 

Rome  was  crushed  by  the  synod  of  Diaraper  which  met 
two  years  later  (a.d.  1599).  The  differences  between  the 
two  bodies  were  brought  to  a  climax  at  this  synod,  which 
was  convened  "  for  the  increase  of  the  Catholic  faith  amoncr 
the  Syrians  in  Malabar,"  together  with  the  extirpation  of 
heresy  and  the  establishment  of  union  under  the  papacy. 
The  papal  party  assumed  that  previous  to  the  Nestorian 
schism  in  the  fifth  century  the  Syrian  Church  had  been 
subject  to  Eome.  The  synod  was  to  put  an  end  to  a 
separation  which  had  lasted  for  more  than  a  thousand  years. 
Although  the  Syrians  were  invited,  the  synod  was  domi- 
nated by  Roman  Catholic  ecclesiastics,  to  whose  decisions 
the  native  Christians  were  required  to  submit.  It  began 
by  denouncing  Nestorius  and  saluting  Mary  as  the  "  mother 
of  God."  Then  it  substituted  the  Roman  saints'  days  for 
the  Nestorian  calendar,  anathematised  the  catholicos  of 
Babylon,  established  the  authority  of  the  pope,  ordered 
moral  reforms  in  the  Church,  licensed  the  Jesuits  to  preach 
in  the  Syrian  churches,  commanded  the  celibacy  of  the 
clergy,  and  required  married  priests  to  dismiss  their  wives. 
One  further  consequence  of  the  synod's  decrees  was  the 
destruction  of  the  old  service  books  where  these  were  not. 
altered  beyond  recognition.  Every  book  containing  here- 
tical doctrine  that  could  be  found  was  burnt.  In  fact,  no 
efforts  were  spared  to  bring  this  ancient  Church  into  line 
with  Rome  and  under  the  absolute  authority  of  the  pope. 
And  the  Syrian  Christians  submitted.  One  hundred  and 
fifty-three  priests  and  six  hundred  and  sixty  lay  procurators 
signed  the  decrees  of  the  synod. 

It  was  submission,  but  forced  submission.  For  more 
than  half  a  century  the  fires  of  discontent  smouldered,  and 
in  the  year  1653  they  broke  into  open  flames.  A  man 
named  Atalla  (i.e.  Theodore),  then  ordained  bishop  by  the 
catholicos  of  Babylon,  and  appointed  by  that  supreme  ecclesi- 
astic of  the  Syrian  Church,  had  no  sooner  landed  at  Maila- 
pore  than  he  was  arrested  by  the  Portuguese  authorities,  sent 
to  Goa,  and  there  deUvered  over  to  the  Inquisition.  This 
treatment  of  thek  new  bishop  roused  the  Syrians  to  a 
34 


530     THE  GREEK  AND  EASTERN  CHURCHES 

white  licat  of  indignation.  They  gathered  together  in 
thousands  round  the  Coonen  cross  in  a  village  near  Cochin, 
and  took  an  oath  renouncing  the  Portuguese  bishops. 
Since  their  own  Syrian  bishop  was  a  prisoner  in  the  hands 
of  the  enemy,  these  people  elected  a  substitute,  Mar 
Thomas  I.,  for  the  temporary  government  of  the  province. 
But  the  result  was  a  split  of  the  Syrian  Church,  one  party 
adhering  to  the  Papal  Church  as  Piomo-Syrians,  while  the 
more  daring  spirits  reverted  to  the  Syrian  usages.  It  is 
estimated  that  the  former,  known  as  Puthencoor,  or  the 
new  community,  now  number  about  110,000,  while  the 
latter,  the  Palayacoor,  or  old  community,  amount  to  about 
330,000. 

Ten  years  later  the  Dutch  obtained  possession  of 
Cochin.  These  new  masters  ordered  foreign  Eoman 
Catholic  ecclesiastics  out  of  their  territory,  and  the  Syrians 
continued  to  obtain  their  bishops  from  the  catholicos  of 
Babylon.  But  in  the  year  1665,  Gregorius,  the  Jacobite 
metropolitan  of  Jerusalem,  appeared  among  the  Syrian 
Christians  at  Malabar.  These  people  were  at  the  time 
without  a  consecrated  bishop,  the  communication  witli  the 
catholicos  having  broken  down.  For  twelve  years  they 
had  been  served  by  Mar  Thomas,  the  bishop  whom  they 
had  elected,  but  who  had  not  received  episcopal  ordination. 
Gregorius  now  duly  consecrated  Thomas  to  his  office,  at 
the  request  of  his  flock,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  metro- 
politan was  a  member  of  another  communion  which 
stood  in  relations  of  mutual  excommunication  to  his 
Church.  Gregorius  remained  in  the  country  administering 
the  affairs  of  the  Church  conjointly  with  Thomas.  In  this 
way  the  Nestorian  Church  in  India  passed  under  Jacobite 
rule — voluntarily,  and  apparently  without  any  conscious- 
ness of  the  irregularity  of  its  action.  We  could  not 
have  a  plainer  proof  of  the  condition  of  indifference  to 
theological  dogmas  to  which  it  had  arrived.  So  things 
went  on  till  the  end  of  the  century,  apparently  giving  rise  to 
no  confusion  of  teaching  or  clash  of  customs.  The  Church 
was  rded  by  a  succession  of  Jacobite  prelates,  some  of 


LATER    EASTERN    CHRISTIANITY  531 

whom  attempted  practical  reforms,  but  apparently  never 
exciting  any  theological  interest  in  their  own  peculiar 
tenets.  Evidently  theology  was  dead  in  the  Church,  and 
the  vitality  of  the  Church  itself  was  not  very  vigorous. 
But  a  silent  current  was  flowing  towards  the  Jacobite 
position.  This  is  proved  by  what  happened  early  in  the 
eighteenth  century,  when  Mar  Gabriel,  a  Nestorian  bishop, 
came  to  Malabar.  Neither  the  metran  (metropolitan)  nor 
his  people  would  acknowledge  him  or  permit  him  to  preach 
in  the  churches.  But  this  inhibition  may  have  been  more 
due  to  his  polemical  airs  than  to  any  local  objection  to  his 
heresy,  for  he  was  described  as  an  implacable  enemy  of 
the  Jacobites.  He  was  able  to  detach  a  small  following  of 
Syrians  whom  he  brought  back  to  their  old  Nestorianism. 
In  the  year  1751  the  Jacobite  patriarch  of  Antioch  sent 
out  a  number  of  copies  of  Jacobite  liturgies,  but  only  on 
one  occasion,  in  the  year  1770,  was  the  metran  ordamed 
by  the  Jacobite  patriarch.  Thus  those  who  are  much 
concerned  with  the  question  of  orders  have  grave  doubts 
concerning  the  status  of  the  priesthood  of  the  Syrian 
Church  in  India.  It  would  appear  that  in  many  cases,  to 
say  the  least,  ordination  has  been  irregular. 

A  new  chapter  in  the  history  of  this  old  Church  opens 
with  the  introduction  of  English  influences  under  the 
auspices  of  the  Church  Missionary  Society.  It  was  rightly 
seen  that  what  the  Nestorian  Church  most  needed  in  the 
first  instance  was  education,  for  the  Syrian  Christians,  clergy 
as  well  as  laity,  were  found  to  be  sunk  in  gross  ignorance. 
Accordingly  in  the  year  1813a  college  was  opened.  The 
English  missionaries  were  disposed  to  hope  that  if  the 
Eoman  corruptions  could  be  removed  the  Syrian  Church 
would  return  to  its  pristine  simplicity.  But  longer  experi- 
ence showed  them  that  their  task  of  restoring  evangelical 
Christianity  would  require  a  more  radical  reformation.  At 
first  the  native  metrans  welcomed  the  co-operation  of  the 
missionaries ;  but  later  on  a  hostile  spirit  was  manifested 
towards  the  foreign  intruders.  A  mistake  was  made  by 
Bishop     Heber     at    Bombay    in     highly     honouring     the 


532  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

bishop,  who  had  been  sent  to  Malabar  bj  the  Jacobite 
patriarch  of  Autioch  to  supersede  the  native  metran,  but 
who  turned  out  to  be  a  very  undesirable  personage.  In 
the  year  1835,  Bishop  Wilson  held  a  conference  with  the 
Syrian  clergy,  and  gave  them  some  excellent  advice  on  the 
need  of  ministerial  training,  the  establishment  of  schools, 
the  use  of  the  vernacular  in  the  prayers,  instruction  in  the 
Gospels,  and  other  improvements,  in  which  they  appeared 
to  acquiesce,  but  which  they  entirely  repudiated  as  soon  as 
he  had  left  them,  even  sending  him  back  the  1,000  rupees 
he  had  given  them.  Perhaps  something  may  be  said  for 
the  Syrian  side  of  the  case.  Excellent  as  was  the  good 
bishop's  advice,  he  had  come  on  a  tour  of  inspection  as 
the  first  "  Metropolitan  of  British  India."  We  can  under- 
stand with  what  feelings  the  leaders  of  an  ancient  Church, 
proud  of  a  history  they  dated  back  to  the  Apostolic  Age, 
would  regard  a  visit  from  this  English  clergyman  with  his 
high-sounding  title,  especially  if  we  allow  that  Bishop 
Wilson  was — as  it  is  asserted — not  deficient  in  British 
masterfulness. 

After  this  the  Syrian  Church  broke  off  relations  with  the 
Church  Missionary  Society.  A  little  later.  Mar  Athanasius 
Mathew,  a  native  of  Malabar,  became  metran.  This  good 
man  worked  for  years  for  the  reform  of  his  Church,  in  spite 
of  local  opposition  and  rivalry.  His  position  was  rather 
ambiguous,  because,  after  priding  himself  on  having  been 
consecrated  by  the  patriarch  of  Antioch,  he  denied  that 
prelate's  authority  to  depose  him.  After  his  death  the 
question  of  the  succession  to  the  bishopric  came  into  the 
law  courts  and  gave  rise  to  ten  years  of  litigation.  This 
question  turned  mainly  on  tlie  riglit  of  the  Jacobite 
patriarch  of  Antioch  to  supremacy  over  the  Syrian  Church 
in  India.  In  point  of  fact,  he  had  only  ordained  one  metran 
accepted  by  that  Church,  Mar  Athanasius,  during  the  whole 
Jacobite  period.  The  opposing  party  based  their  claim 
for  independence  on  the  earlier  history  of  the  Church  when 
it  was  in  communion  with  the  Nestorian  catholicos  at  Baby- 
Ion  and  derived  its  orders  from  him,  as  well  as  on  its  own 


LATER    EASTERN    CHRISTIANITY  533 

habitual  autonomy.      But  the  judicial  decision  handed  the 
see  over  to  the  Jacobite  nominee,  Mar  Dionysius  Joseph. 

While  there  is  little  sign  of  progress  in  the  Syrian  Church 
as  an  organisation,  many  young  men  from  this  communion  go 
to  study  at  Madras  University.  Therefore,  perhaps,  these 
educated  Christians  of  St.  Thomas  will  come  in  time  to 
insist  on  the  introduction  of  more  enlightened  methods  in 
the  conduct  of  their  Church,  such  as  the  extension  of 
education  and  the  higher  training  of  the  clergy ;  but  that 
will  only  be  the  case  if  they  remain  loyal  to  the  faith  and 
Church  of  their  fathers  after  passing  through  the  mill  of 
Western  culture. 

The  Syrian  churches  which  may  be  seen  in  South 
India  to-day  are  constructed  with  Saracenic  arches,  sloping 
roofs,  and  buttressed  walls.  For  the  most  part  they  are 
red  in  hue,  and  are  built  of  stones  squared  and  polished  in 
the  quarries.  They  have  bells  cast  in  native  founderies. 
The  traveller  off  the  lines  of  modern  missions  may  be 
startled  to  hear  the  sound  of  church  bells  among  the  hills, 
indicating  the  neighbourhood  of  some  old  church  of  the 
Syrian  Christians. 

Lastly,  we  have  traces  of  Syrian  Christianity  in  China. 
Its  origin  has  not  been  discovered,  and  some  have  doubted  its 
ever  having  existed.  But  there  is  clear  evidence  that  the 
early  Nestorian  missionaries  or  their  successors  penetrated 
into  the  interior  of  the  Celestial  Empire.  In  the  year 
1625  the  Jesuits  found  a  marble  tablet,  7 J  ft.  high  and 
nearly  4  ft.  broad,  buried  under  some  ruins  at  Singanfu, 
a  large  city  on  the  Yellow  Eiver,  formerly  the  capital  of 
the  empire.  This  tablet  is  entitled  "  A  monument  com- 
memorating the  introduction  and  propagation  of  the  noble 
law  of  Ta  t'sin  in  the  middle  kingdom."  In  the  upper 
part  there  is  an  incised  cross,  beneath  which  is  an  inscrip- 
tion in  Syriac  and  Chinese,  first  setting  forth  a  vague 
abstract  of  Christian  doctrine,  and  then  recording  the  chief 
events  of  a  Syrian  mission  in  China.  It  tells  how  a  mis- 
sionary named  Olopan  came  from  Judsea  to  China  in  the 
year  636,  having  escaped  great  dangers  by  sea  and  land, 


534  THK    ORKKK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

and  was  mot  by  an  olVun'al  nf  tlio  ('m])oror  and  loduod  in 
the  imperial  palfire,  where  liis  law  wns  examined,  witli  the 
result  that  its  truth  was  acknowledged.  Thereupon,  accord- 
ing to  the  inscription,  the  emperor  issued  an  edict  in  favour 
of  Christianity,  ordered  a  church  to  be  built,  and  nominated 
twenty-one  persons  to  serve  it.  So  much  for  the  begin- 
nings. Then  follows  a  chronicle  of  the  mission  from  the 
year  636  to  the  year  780  (in  the  inscription  1092  of  the 
Greek  era).  At  first  there  was  success,  and  the  Christians 
prospered  unmolested.  This  went  on  for  two  generations. 
In  the  year  699  there  came  a  change,  and  the  Church 
was  persecuted ;  a  second  persecution  broke  out  fourteen 
years  later,  after  which  the  Christian  again  entered  on  a 
happy  time.  This  was  under  the  Emperor  Hinem-cum. 
At  a  later  time  a  second  mission  appeared,  in  consequence 
of  which  many  churches  were  built,  and  Christianity  was 
patronised  by  a  succession  of  emperors.  The  tablet  also 
contains  a  list  of  clergy.^ 

The  antiquity  and  genuineness  of  this  tablet  are  not 
altogether  above  suspicion.  It  might  be  expected  that 
if  so  great  progress  had  been  made  in  early  times,  more 
indications  of  it  would  be  apparent  in  the  present  day. 
The  account  of  the  notice  taken  of  this  mission  by  the 
emperors  and  their  active  patronage  and  assistance  is 
certainly  remarkable  ;  it  calls  for  confirmation  that  is  not 
forthcoming.  Accordingly  some  have  held  that  the  whole 
thing  is  an  impudent  fraud  of  the  Jesuits.^  That,  however, 
is  highly  improbable.  What  motive  would  these  zealous 
proselytes  of  the  papal  party  have  had  for  producing  false 
evidence  in  favour  of  the  venerable  antiquity  and  former 
high  status  of  the  Syrian  Church  ?  ^  Besides,  we  have 
other  evidence  of  the  existence  of  Christianity  in  China 
not  far  from  the  times  of  the  tablet. 

The  canon  of  Theodore,  bishop  of  Edessa  in  the  year 

^  There  is  a  facsimile  of  this  tablet  in  Yule's  Marco  Polo,  vol.  i.  p.  21. 
^  Renan  was  very  dubious  about  it.     i?'ee  Hist.  Lang.  Semit.  p.  202. 
^  See  Mosheim,  Church  Hist.  vol.  ii.  pp.  151,  152,   notes  a,    b,    for  a 
learned  discussion  of  this  question. 


LATER    EASTERN    CHRISTIANITY  535 

800,  refers  to  "Metropolitans  of  China,  India,  and  Persia, 
of  the  Merozites  of  Siani,  of  the  JRaziehes,  of  the  Harinos,  of 
Saniarcand,  which  are  distant  and  whicli  hy  reason  of  the 
infested  mountains  and  turhulent  sea  are  prevented  from 
attending  the  four  yearly  convocations  witli  the  catholicos, 
and  who  therefore  are  to  send  their  reports  every  six 
years." 

In  the  year  845  the  Emperor  Wu  Tsung  condemned 
4,600  Buddhist  monasteries  to  be  destroyed,  and  at  the  same 
time  ordered  three  lumdred  foreit^n  priests  "  to  return  to 
the  secular  life,  tliat  the  customs  of  the  empire  might  he 
uniform."  ^ 

Further,  two  Arab  travellers  of  the  same  century  have 
left  accounts  of  their  discoveries  of  Christianity  in  China. 
One  of  them,  Ebn  Wahab,  describes  his  conversation  with 
the  emperor  about  the  contents  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment. Another  indication  of  ancient  Syrian  Christianity 
in  China  is  to  be  seen  in  the  discovery  in  the  year  1725 
of  a  Syrian  manuscript  containing  large  portions  of  the 
Old  Testament  and  a  collection  of  hymns  which  was  in  the 
possession  of  a  Chinaman.^ 

In  the  tenth  century — so  dark  in  Western  Europe — 
the  Nestorians  introduced  Christianity  into  Tartary  proper. 
Three  centuries  later  (a.d.  1274),  Marco  Polo  says 
that  he  has  seen  two  churches  in  the  city  of  Cingianfu 
built  by  Nestorians.  He  states  that  "  the  Great  Khan  sent 
a  baron  of  his  whose  name  was  Mar  Sarghis  [  ?  Sergius],  a 
Nestorian  Cliristian,  to  be  governor  of  this  city  for  three 
years.  The  two  churches  were  built  during  that  time."^ 
A  little  further  on  Marco  Polo  tells  us  of  some  people 
called  Alans  who  were  Christians,  but  who  lost  a  city  they 
had  captured  by  their  drunkenness.* 

The  legend  of  Prester  John,  so  widespread  and  so  long 
enduring  in  the  East,  wild  and  fantastic  as  it  has  become, 
is   based    on    the    idea    of    the    conversion    of    a    Mongol 

^  Du  Halde,  China,  vol.  i.  p.  518,  nuoted  in  Broomhall,   The  Chinese 
Empire,  p.  6. 

3  Ihid.  *  Yule's  Marco  Polo,  vol.  ii.  p.  162.  *  Ibid.  p.  163. 


536  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

tribe  called  Karith,  living  on  the  confines  of  China.  The 
hero  of  the  legend  is  said  to  have  been  the  king  of  this 
people,  and  to  have  lived  at  Kara-Korum,  a  city  on  the 
Orchar  about  six  hundred  miles  west  of  Pekin.  His  original 
name  and  title  were  Ung  or  Avenk  Khan;  but  coming 
under  the  Christian  influences  of  the  Syrians  he  was 
converted,  and  then  he  received  his  baptismal  name  and 
title,  Malek  Juchana,  i.e.  King  John.  His  niece,  who  also 
became  a  Christian,  was  said  to  have  been  married  to  Tuli, 
the  son  of  Genghis  Khan.  If  the  story  is  correct,  like 
Bertha  of  Canterbury,  she  introduced  the  faith  of  Christ  to 
her  pagan  husband's  coui't,  with  the  result  that  a  succession 
of  kings  of  the  tribe  of  Karith  professed  Christianity.^ 

In  the  year  1145  the  Syrian  bishop  of  Gabala  (Jihal, 
in  Laodicea  of  Syria),  coming  to  Europe  to  lay  his  griev- 
ances before  Pope  Eugenius  IIL,  reported  that  not  long 
before,  a  certain  John,  living  in  the  Far  East,  a  king  and 
Nestorian  priest,  claiming  descent  from  the  three  wise 
kings,  had  made  war  on  the  Samiard  king  of  the  Medes 
and  Persians,  and  had  taken  Ecbatana  their  capital.  Pro- 
ceeding to  deliver  Jerusalem,  he  was  stopped  by  the  Tigris 
and  by  the  sickness  of  his  army.^  The  probability  is  that 
this  story  refers  to  a  raid  by  some  Armenian  prince.  The 
Crusading  project  of  rescuing  Jerusalem  and  the  stoppage  of 
it  at  the  Tigris  do  not  point  to  China. 

Great  as  was  the  fame  of  the  mysterious  John,  possibly 
attached  to  more  than  one  real  or  mythical  person  in 
more  than  one  locality,  it  was  not  undisputed.  For 
example.  Friar  William  of  Eubruch,  who  preceded  Marco 
Polo  by  a  few  years,  and  travelled  in  these  Eastern  parts 
during  the  years  1253  to  1255,  when  referring  to  a  famous 
Mongolian  chieftain,  says,  "  The  Nestorians  used  to  call 
him  King  John,  and  to  say  of  him  ten  times  mure  than 
was  true,  for  this  is  the  way  of  the  Nestorians  who  come 
from  these  parts.  Out  of  nothing  they  will  make  a  great 
story,  and  so  great  reports  went  out  concerning  this  King 

^  See  Asseiiian,  tome  iv.  p.  494  ;  Marco  Polo,  vol.  i.  p.  234  ff. 
"  Yule's  Marco  Polo,  vol.  i.  p.  228,  note  flf. 


LATER    EASTERN    CHRISTIANITY  537 

John ;  though  when  I  went  through  his  pastm-e  lands  no 
one  knew  anything  of  him  save  a  few  Nestorians."  ^ 

Friar  William's  unkind  remarks  about  the  Nestorians 
are  not  quite  fair.  It  was  not  they  who  invented  the 
legend.  Tlie  true  origin  of  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  West, 
where  it  grew  up  out  of  vague  reports  of  distant  Oriental 
travel,  and  whence  it  was  transported  to  the  region  inhabited 
by  the  Nestorians,  who  no  doubt  were  glad  to  welcome  so 
flattering  a  story  and  not  reluctant  to  make  the  most  of  it. 

Eoman  Catholicism  was  introduced  into  Tartary  and 
China  in  the  thirteenth  century,  when  Pope  Nicholas  iv. 
sent  John  de  Monte  Corvino  to  the  court  of  Kublai  Khan,  the 
founder  of  the  Yuen  or  Mongol  dynasty  in  China.  Cut  off 
from  communication  with  Europe,  this  missionary  laboured 
till  his  death  at  the  age  of  seventy-eight  (a.d.  1307),  and  left 
behind  him  a  translation  of  the  whole  New  Testament  and  the 
Psalter  in  the  language  of  the  Tartars.  There  are  existmg 
letters  in  which — if  they  are  genuine — Kublai  Khan  requests 
the  pope  to  send  one  hundred  missionaries  to  his  country. 
Troubles  in  the  papacy  at  home  put  a  stop  to  the  promising 
missionary  enterprise.  In  the  sixteenth  century  the 
Jesuit  mission  to  China  projected  by  Xavier  was  carried 
out  by  Father  Eicci,  who  established  himself  at  Shacking 
and  cleverly  worked  his  way  on  to  Pekin,  founding  missions 
by  the  way  at  Nauchang  Fu,  Suchow  Fu,  and  Nanking  Fu. 
He  died  in  1610.  In  1631  Dominican  and  Franciscan 
missionaries  arrived  in  China,  and  a  bitter  controversy 
with  the  Jesuits  was  the  consequence.  Trouble  also  came 
from  the  break-up  of  the  Mmg  dynasty  and  the  rise  of 
the  present  Manchu  power. 

By  the  year  1G37,  the  Jesuits  had  published  340 
treatises  on  religion,  philosophy,  and  mathematics  in  the 
Chinese  language.  These  energetic  servants  of  the  Church 
and  the  papacy  have  been  accused  of  being  remarkably 
accommodating  in  adapting  the  beliefs  and  requirements 
of  Christianity  to  Chinese  ideas  and  customs.  They  even 
succeeded   in  winning    over    Chung-chi,  who   became   the 

»  Hakluyt  Soc,  Second  Series,  iv.,  1900. 


538  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

first  Christian  emperor  of  the  Mongolian  race.  On  his 
death  the  mandarins,  holding  the  reins  of  government 
during  the  youth  of  his  son,  turned  against  the  Jesuits,  of 
whose  privileges  they  had  become  very  jealous,  and  com- 
menced a  persecution  (a.d.  1664).  The  chief  of  the 
Jesuits,  John  Adam  Schaal,  then  an  old  man,  who  had 
held  an  honourable  place  at  court,  was  flung  into  prison 
and  ultimately  executed,  while  the  other  missionaries  were 
driven  into  exile.  About  five  years  later,  the  young  heir, 
Kang-hsi,  assumed  the  government  and  at  once  reversed 
this  policy  of  the  regency,  and  recalled  the  Jesuits.  The 
new  emperor  proved  to  be  a  man  of  noble  and  generous 
spirit.  He  valued  the  Jesuits  so  greatly  that  he  sent  to 
Europe  for  more  of  the  order,  and  set  these  men  in  the 
highest  positions  in  the  .State.  Thus  the  awakening  of 
China  under  the  influence  of  Europe  which  we  are  witness- 
ing to-day  seemed  to  be  promised  more  than  two  hundred 
years  ago. 

The  famous  Emperor  Kang-hsi  continued  to  favour  the 
Jesuits  during  the  whole  of  his  long  reign  of  sixty  years, 
and  built  them  their  magnificent  church  at  Pekin.  At 
the  death  of  this  emperor  in  the  year  1722,  the  imperial 
favour  ceased,  and  the  Jesuit  influence  declined.  But  the 
Eoman  Catholics  have  ever  since  claimed  a  political  status 
in  the  empire. 

Protestant  missions  in  China  were  begun  in  the  year 
1807  by  Dr.  Morrison.  In  the  year  1907  there  were 
3,719  Protestant  missionaries  in  the  empire,  with  9,998 
native  helpers,  154,142  communicants,  706  stations  and 
3,794  out-stations,  366  hospitals  and  dispensaries,  2,139 
day  schools,  42,73  8  pupils,  255  boarding  and  higher  schools, 
containing  10,227  pupils.' 

'  Broomhall,  p.  40. 


CHAPTER    VI 

THE    ARMENIAN    CHURCH 

(a)  Langlois,    Collection    des   Historiens    Anciens    et    Modernes    de 

VArm^nie,  including  Agathangelos,  Moses  of  Chorene,  "the 
Herodotus  of  Armenia "  (5th  century),  etc.  ;  Vartabet 
Matthew,  Life  of  St.  Gregory  the  Illuminator  {tnms,.  by  Malan) ; 
The  Divine  Liturgy  of  the  Armenian  Church  (trans,  by  Malan)  ; 
Vitce  Sanctorum  Calendarii  Armeniaici  (12  vols.  pub.  Venice, 
1814) ;  Asseman  ii.  ;  Le  Quien,  Oriens  Christianus,  vol.  i. 

(b)  Fortescue,  The  Armenian  Church,  1872  ;  Issaverdenz,  Armenia 

and  the  Armenians  (2nd  edit.,  1875-78) ;  Tozer,  Turkish 
Armenia,  1881  ;  Bryce,  Transcaucasia  and  Ararat  (4th  edit., 
1896)  ;  L&]^si\is,  Armenia  and  Euro})e,  1897  ;  Lynch,  Armenia, 
1901. 

Armenia  is  a  name  used  for  a  coimtiy  of  indefinite  and  vary- 
ing extent,  centred  at  the  southern  slopes  of  the  Caucasus 
and  the  high  table-land  which  is  a  western  projection  of 
the  plain  of  Iram,  and  which  culminates  in  Mount  Ararat. 
At  the  time  of  the  Eomans  it  was  divided  into  Armenia 
Minor,  west  of  the  Euphrates,  and  Armenia  Major,  east  of 
that  river.  Situated  at  the  meeting  point  of  vast  and  am- 
Ijitious  empires,  Armenia  has  been  tossed  to  and  fro  between 
them  as  the  repeated  victim  of  their  shifting  fortunes. 
After  having  been  conquered  by  Alexander  the  Great  and 
then  placed  under  Macedonian  supremacy,  Armenia  obtained 
a  partial  independence  from  the  Eomans,  who  set  up 
a  kingdom  there,  not  attempting  to  incorporate  it  in  their 
empire.  But  Parthia  and  Persia  in  turn  seized  hold  of  the 
country,  which  came  to  be  divided  between  the  Byzantine 
and  Persian  powers,  with  different  degrees  of  autonomy  in 
successive  ages,  until  the  Mongolian  invasions  swept  over 

539 


540  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

it  aud  at  last  tLic  Mohammedan  con({uests  brought  the 
greater  part  of  it  under  the  sway  of  Islam.  The  Armenians, 
who  are  now  largely  scattered  over  Asia  Minor  and  con- 
siderably represented  at  Constantinople,  are  an  ancient, 
distinct  race  of  the  Indo-Germanic  family  with  marked 
characteristics,  among  wb  ich  is  a  keen  business  ability,  that 
has  enabled  them  to  attain  to  wealth  where  it  has  been 
possible  for  them  to  do  so,  in  face  of  oppression  and 
persecution.  They  were  neither  Hellenised  under  the 
Byzanthie  Empire  nor  Latinised  under  the  Eomau.  They 
have  retained  their  own  language  and  national  character- 
istics in  spite  of  the  terrible  series  of  destructive  tyrannies 
to  which  they  have  been  subject.  In  this  respect,  and  in  the 
hatred  their  commercial  superiority  has  aroused,  we  may 
compare  them  to  the  Jews,  whom  they  thus  resemble 
more  than  any  other'  race. 

It  is  usual  to  divide  the  history  of  the  Armenian 
Church  into  three  periods  —  (1)  A.D.  34—302,  begin- 
ning with  the  legendary  mission  of  Thaddteus  to  King 
Abgar,  together  with  supposed  visits  of  Bartholomew, 
Simon,  and  Jude;^  (2)  a.d.  302-491,  from  the  mission  of 
Gregory  the  Illuminator  to  the  breach  with  the  orthodox 
Church  owing  to  rejection  of  the  decrees  of  Chalcedon; 
(3)  A.D.  491  to  the  present  time,  when  the  Church  of 
Armenia  has  been  entirely  independent  of  Constantinople 
and  doctrinally  severed  from  the  Greek  Church.  But  the 
first  of  these  periods  is  mythical ;  we  have  no  clear  evidence 
of  any  Christianity  existing  in  Armenia  previous  to  the 
fourth  century,  when  Gregory  Illuminator,  the  apostle  of 
the  Armenians,  introduced  the  gospel  to  these  people. 

Gi-egory,  who  is  surnamed  "  The  Illuminator,"  because 
"  Illumination  "  is  the  technical  Armenian  word  for 
conversion,  was  born  about  the  year  257,  at  Valarshabad 
(now  represented  by  Etekmiadzin),  the  capital  of  the 
province  of  Ararat  in  Armenia.  At  the  instigation  of  the 
Sassauid  Sapor  i.  his  father  assassinated  Chosroes  i.,  the  King 
of  Armenia,  for  which  act  the  dying  king  ordered  the  whole 
^  See  Lyucb,  Armenia,  vol.  i.  p.  277,  note  2. 


THE    ARMENIAN    CHURCH  541 

family  to  be  slain  ;  but  Gregory,  then  a  young  infant,  was 
saved  and  carried  off  to  Ciesarea  in  Cappadocia,  where  he 
was  brought  up  as  a  Christian.  Subsequently  he  became 
an  attendant  of  Tiridates  in.,  the  King  of  Armenia,  who 
raised  him  to  the  rank  of  a  nol)le.  But,  being  true  to  his 
Christian  faith,  he  angered  his  royal  master  by  refusing  to 
take  part  in  a  heathen  sacrifice.  "  The  twelve  tortures 
of  St.  Gregory  "  are  a  series  of  torments  with  which  the 
saint  is  said  to  have  been  punished  for  his  disobedience. 
Unfortunately  his  contemporary  biography  has  been  so 
embroidered  with  legendary  decorations  that  it  is  im- 
possible to  disentangle  it  from  these  later  materials.  "We 
see  Tiridates  transformed  into  a  wild  boar  for  murder- 
ing a  nun  who  is  a  member  of  a  religious  community 
that  has  taken  refuge  in  Armenia  in  order  to  escape  the 
Diocletian  persecution,  and  who  has  refused  his  advances 
and  got  away  from  his  palace  after  having  been  carried  off 
for  the  royal  harem.  It  is  revealed  to  the  king's  sister 
that  he  can  be  restored  if  Gregory  is  brought  up  from  the 
pit  where  he  has  been  confined.  This  is  done ;  whereupon 
Gregory  brings  back  Tiridates  to  his  human  form,  and  cures 
the  people  who  have  been  smitten  with  the  plague.  The 
saint  is  now  encouraged  to  preach  the  gospel  to  the  delighted 
king  and  nation,  and  he  does  so  with  very  great  effect.^ 
After  this  we  are  compelled  to  be  doubtful  as  to  other 
details  in  the  story,  such  as  the  statement  of  the  large 
number  of  churches  that  Gregory  built.  Still,  there  is  no 
question  that  the  Illuminator  was  a  successful  missionary 
in  Armenia,  nor  that  from  his  time  Christianity  was  the 
recognised  religion  of  the  State.  This  was  before  Constan- 
tine  had  adopted  Christianity.  Thus  Armenia  was  the 
first  country  to  receive  and  acknowledge  Christianity  as  its 
national  religion. 

Gregory  was  consecrated  bishop  of  Armenia  by  Leontius, 
the  bishop  of  Csesarea  in  Cappadocia.  Taking  the  year  of 
his  release  from  the  pit  as  A.D.  300,  Mr.  Malan  assigns  his 
consecration  to  the  year  302.     But  as  the  earliest  notice 

^  Agathangelos,  89. 


542  THK   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

of  Leontius  as  bishop  of  Qesarea  is  in  the  year  314  when 
he  signed  the  canons  of  the  councils  of  Ancyra  and  Neo- 
ctesarea,  this  may  be  a  little  too  early.  The  connection 
between  Armenia  and  the  Cappadocian  Csesarea  was  kept 
up  for  a  hundred  years,  after  which  it  was  broken  by  the 
Tersian  advance.  St.  Gregory  is  said  to  have  exercised 
the  functions  of  bishop  for  about  thirty  years,  and  then  to 
have  retired  to  a  solitary  life  among  the  caves  of  Manyea, 
where  he  only  lived  for  a  twelvemonth,  and  died  in  the  year 
332.  The  tradition  of  his  visit  to  Constantine  with  his 
sovereign,  whicli  subsequently  grew  into  a  splendid  journey 
to  Eome  and  reception  by  Pope  Sylvester,  is  purely 
legendary  and  evidently  false.^  Gregory  was  succeeded  in 
turn  by  his  two  sons,  Eostaces  and  Bartanes,  after  whom 
in  succession  came  two  sons  of  Eostaces.  Thus  we  see 
Gregory's  personal  and  family  influence  long  dominating 
the  Church  of  which  he  was  the  founder.  It  must  have 
been  about  the  time  of  the  last  of  these  descendants 
of  Gregory  the  Illuminator  that  Julian,  when  about  to  set 
out  on  his  ill-fated  Persian  expedition,  sent  an  insulting 
letter  to  Arsacius,  King  of  Armenia,  claiming  his  alliance 
and  co-operation,  and  warning  him  that  unless  he  acted 
according  to  the  emperor's  directions,  his  God  in  whom  he 
trusted  would  not  be  able  to  deliver  him  from  the 
vengeance  of  Eome.^ 

Towards  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  Armenia  had  a 
famous  bishop,  or  rather  catholicos,  as  the  head  of  the 
Armenian  Church  was  now  called,  who  was  in  ofltice  for 
thirty  -  four  years.  This  was  Norseses  i.  He  too  was 
related  to  Gregory  the  Illuminator.  Norseses  was  present 
at  the  council  of  (Jonstantinople  (a.d.  381);  he  was  put 
to  death  by  Pharme,  the  King  of  Armenia.^ 

The  original  Armenian  version  of  the  Bible  was  made 
about  the  end  of  the  fourth  and  beginning  of  the  fifth 
centuries  by  Mesrob,  a  scholar  from  Edessa,  with  the  help 
of    a    Greek    scribe    named     Hrofanos — whom    Scrivener 

'  Nic(i>h.  Calliht.  H.  E.  viii.  35  ;  Moses  of  Chorene,  89. 
Sozoiiieii,  Hid.  Eccl.  vi.  1.  *  Le  Quieii,  vol.  i.  1375. 


THE    ARMENIAN    CHURCH  543 

supposes  to  have  been  Eufinus — and  two  pupils  named 
John  and  Joseph  ;  it  was  based  on  the  Greek  text,  and  began 
with  the  Book  of  Proverbs.  Near  about  the  same  time 
the  Bible,  or  part  of  it,  was  also  translated  by  St.  Sahak, 
i.e.  Isaac,  who,  however,  only  worked  on  a  Syriac  text.  The 
present  Armenian  version  appears  to  be  a  recension  made 
shortly  after  the  council  of  Ephesus.^  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  early  possession  of  the  Scriptures  in  the 
vernacular  helped  to  enlighten  and  consolidate  the  Armenian 
Church  and  to  fortify  it  for  the  trials  it  was  called  upon  to 
endure. 

After  the  murder  of  Norseses,  the  metropolitan  of 
Caesarea  refused  to  allow  his  three  successors  to  ordain. 
Isaac,  the  translator  of  the  Bible,  was  the  first  to  be  em- 
powered to  resume  this  function,  and  he  held  office  for 
forty  years,  during  which  time  the  native  dynasty  was 
overthrown  by  the  Persians.  The  Armenian  Hturgy  dates 
from  the  time  of  Isaac,  which  may  be  regarded  as  the 
golden  age  of  Armenian  literature.  Then  a  cloud  of 
troubles  burst  on  the  Church.  In  the  year  440,  Isaac  was 
deposed  by  the  Persians,  who  set  a  succession  of  their  own 
nominees  in  his  place. 

We  now  approach  the  events  that  severed  the 
Armenians  from  the  main  body  of  the  Church  in  the 
East.  They  refused  to  accept  the  decrees  of  the  council 
of  Chalcedon  (a.d.  451).  Dr.  Neale  maintains  that  this 
was  not  because  they  sympathised  with  the  Eutychian 
doctrine,  but  because  they  misunderstood  the  council's 
position  and  supposed  it  to  favour  Nestorianism.  That 
may  have  been  the  case  at  the  time,  but  it  will  not  serve 
as  a  defence  of  Armenian  orthodoxy  in  perpetuity.  Nine 
years  later,  the  archimandrite  Barsumas,  the  leader  of  the 
turbulent  band  of  monks  who  had  violently  attacked  the 
opponents  of  Eutyches  at  the  "  Eobber  Council,"  and  a 
staunch  supporter  of  Eutychianism,  sent  his  disciple  Samuel 
into  Armenia  to  confirm  the  Church  of  that  country  in  its 

1  Scrivener,  Introduction  to  the  Criticism  of  the  New  Test.,  4th   edit, 
pp.  148-154. 


544  THE   GRKEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

rejection  of  the  council  of  Chalcedon.  Thus  Samuel 
became  the  propagandist  of  Monophysitism  in  the  Armenian 
Church,  and  therefore,  even  if  its  attitude  in  disapproving  of 
the  fourth  oecumenical  council  may  have  been  at  first  due  to 
a  misapprehension,  from  the  time  of  Barsumas's  interference 
it  was  definitely  drilled  into  the  Monophysite  doctrine.  No 
doubt  it  was  at  a  disadvantage  in  only  having  the  views 
of  the  two  extremists.  The  Armenians  saw  Nestorianism 
among  their  Syrian  neighbours  and  rejected  it ;  they  were 
offered  Monophysitism  as  its  distinct  opposite ;  but,  unlike 
the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches,  they  did  not  have  the  via 
media  of  Catholic  doctrine  presented  to  them  in  its  antagon- 
ism to  both  extremes.  Under  such  circumstances  it  would 
have  been  a  miracle  if  they  had  not  become  Monophysites. 
Still,  forty  years  passed  before  there  was  any  breach  with 
the  orthodox  Church.  This  took  place  in  the  year  491, 
when  the  Armenian  National  Council  assembled  at  Vagar- 
shiabad  formally  anathematised  the  council  of  Chalcedon. 
From  that  time  onwards  the  national  Church  of  Armenia 
— now  known  as  the  Gregorian  Church,  after  the  name  of 
its  famous  founder — has  stood  apart  from  the  Greek 
Church,  remaining  in  isolation  down  to  the  present  day,  in 
spite  of  repeated  attempts  at  reunion. 

In  the  year  535  there  was  held  the  famous  council 
of  Tiben,  which  anathematised  the  orthodox  Church  of 
Jerusalem  and  added  the  Monophysite  clause,  "  who  was 
crucified  for  us,"  to  the  Trisagion,  at  the  same  time 
confirming  the  union  of  the  feasts  of  the  Nativity  and 
Epiphany  (or  baptism  of  Christ)  in  opposition  to  Catholic 
usage.  So  important  has  this  council  been  reckoned  in 
Armenia,  that  the  national  calendar  has  been  dated  from 
it — though  starting  with  a  wrong  year — a.d.  531,  four 
years  too  early.^ 

Towards  the  end  of  the  sixth  century  there  was  a 
temporary  schism  resulting  from  an  attempt  on  the  part  of 
the  Ptoman  Emperor  Maurice  to  bring  back  the  Armenians 
to  the  orthodox  fold.      The  Armenian  monarch,  Chosroes  II., 

^  Le  Quien,  Oriens  Chrisiianus,  vol.  i.  1383. 


THE    ARMENIAN    CHURCH  545 

owed  his  throne  to  Maurice,  who  thus  acquired  para- 
mount influence  in  Armenia.  Chosroes  even  gave  him  the 
province  which  had  been  under  the  Persian  dominion. 
In  this  way  Tiben,  where  the  cathohcos  then  resided, 
was  transferred  to  the  Eoman  Empire.  It  was  natural, 
therefore,  that  an  orthodox  emperor,  accustomed  to  rule 
over  the  Church  in  his  dominions,  should  expect  the 
Armenians  to  come  into  line  with  the  rest  of  his  subjects. 
But  Moses  II.,  who  was  Armenian  patriarch  at  the  time, 
declined  to  change  his  creed  at  the  bidding  of  a  Greek 
despot,  and  refused  to  communicate  with  those  bishops  of 
the  transferred  province  of  Taron  who  had  given  in  their 
submission  after  a  conference  at  Constantinople.  Then 
Maurice  appointed  a  rival  catholicos,  John  of  Cocosta.  On 
the  death  of  Moses,  his  successor,  Abraham  of  Arastune, 
summoned  a  council  of  bishops,  presbyters,  and  archiman- 
drites, which  decreed  that  all  who  refused  to  anathematise 
the  council  of  Chalcedon  should  be  banished  from  the 
country.  This  led  to  a  formal  secession  from  the  Church 
by  John  and  his  party. 

In  the  year  632  the  Emperor  Heraclius  assembled  a 
council  of  Greeks  and  Armenians  at  Carana  (the  modern 
Erzeroum),  which  after  a  month's  discussion  came  to  an 
agreement  in  anathematising  the  decisions  of  Tiben  and 
accepting  the  Chalcedonian  position.  The  one  champion  of 
Armenian  orthodoxy  was  John  Maracumensis,  who  was  a 
candidate  for  the  post  of  catholicos.  He  was  condemned  at 
this  council  to  banishment,  condemned  again  at  a  second 
council,  branded  on  the  forehead  with  the  figure  of  a  fox 
by  the  prsetor  of  Roman  Armenia,  and  driven  away  to 
Mount  Caucasus.  But  he  had  his  disciples  who  cherished 
the  seed  of  the  old  Armenian  faith,  and  who  eventually 
succeeded  in  restoring  it  in  the  national  Church.  Then 
came  the  Mohammedan  conquest.  But  again  the  country 
was  forced  to  a  nominal  acceptance  of  Greek  orthodoxy, 
when  Justinian  II.  temporarily  recovered  Armenia  to 
Christendom,  and  the  catholicos  Isaac  ill.  and  his  bishops 
were  summoned  to  Constantinople,  where  they  were  induced 
35 


546  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

to  give  in  their  adherence  to  tlie  creed  of  Chalcedon  (a.d. 
689).  On  their  return  home  this  act  of  weakness  was  repudi- 
ated by  their  Church,  and  the  reconquest  of  Armenia  by  tlic 
Saracens  enabled  the  National  Church  to  revert  to  its  old 
position.  This  was  confirmed  in  a  famous  synod  summoned 
by  the  command  of  the  General  Omar  at  Manaschiertum  on 
the  confines  of  Hyrcania  in  the  year  715.  It  was  politic  fur 
the  Saracens  to  promote  an  ecclesiastical  schism  that  divided 
their  Christian  subjects  from  the  Byzantine  Empire.  At 
this  synod  there  were  six  Jacobite  Syrian  bishops ;  and  it 
resulted  in  the  fusion  of  the  two  communions  on  the  basis 
of  the  Monophysite  doctrine,  except  that  the  Julian  ists,^ 
who  were  well  represented  in  Armenia,  held  aloof.  After 
this  the  affairs  of  the  Armenian  Church  pass  into  obscurity. 
Even  in  spite  of  the  rejection  of  the  decrees  of  Chalcedon 
the  severance  of  the  Armenian  from  the  Greek  Church  was 
gradual,  fliuctuating,  and  long  indefinite.  This  is  proved  by 
the  fact  that  there  were  Armenian  bishops  at  the  three 
succeeding  oecumenical  councils — 11.  Constantinople  (a.d. 
553);  111.  Constantinople  (a.d.  680);  and  even  11.  Nicaea 
(a.d.  788) — and  that  the  decrees  of  those  councils  were 
acknowledged  in  Armenia.  As  late  as  the  year  1166 
the  catholicos  Narses,  writing  to  the  Emperor  Manuel 
Comnenus,  distinctly  repudiated  the  Eutychian  heresy. 
But  then  he  did  not  accept  the  Chalcedonian  definition. 
The  position  assumed  by  his  Church  all  along  when  not 
disturbed  by  foreign  influences  was  that  its  doctrine  was 
ancient  primitive  Christianity,  not  Eutychian  nor  any  other 
])eculiar  theology,  and  that  the  council  of  Chalcedon  had 
1  >een  false  to  that  teaching  in  leaning  towards  Nestorianism. 
During  the  mediaeval  period  the  Armenians  were 
not  represented  by  any  conspicuous  ecclesiastic  or  theo- 
l(jgian,  and  yet  the  eighth,  ninth,  tenth,  and  eleventh 
centuries  all  contributed  some  works  to  Armenian  litera- 
ture. Turks  and  Byzantines  now  made  Armenia  then- 
l)attlefield,  and  the  miserable  people  sulfered  only  less  from 
the  latter  than  from  the  former.  For  three  centuries  the 
iSee  p.  120. 


THE    ARMENIAN    CHURCH  547 

country  was  swept  by  nomadic  tribes,  and  can  scarcely  be 
said  to  have  had  a  national  existence.  The  devastating 
rush  of  Tiniour  came  with  fatal  force  over  Armenia.  The 
peasants  were  driven  from  the  plains,  and  the  whole 
population  reduced  to  the  depths  of  poverty  and  misery. 
Many  hid  in  the  mountains.  Not  a  few  in  despair 
accepted  Islam  and  intermarried  with  Kurds.  Others 
escaped  to  Cilicia  and  Cappadocia,  and  there  became  the 
nucleus  of  the  Christian  kingdom  of  Lesser  Armenia,  which 
contrived  to  exist  in  independence,  though  ringed  round  with 
Moslem  provinces  and  not  in  alliance  with  the  Byzantine 
Empire.  These  Western  Armenians  joined  hands  with  the 
Crusaders,  and  when  communications  with  Europe  were 
reopened  began  to  develop  the  remarkable  commercial 
genius  for  which  the  race  has  been  famous  all  around  the 
Mediterranean  down  to  our  own  day.  Unfortunately  this 
same  facility  of  communication  with  Europe  opened  the 
way  for  papal  aggressiveness.  In  the  year  13.35  there 
was  formed  an  Armenian  Uniat  Society,  which  accepted 
the  Eoman  Catholic  form  of  Christianity.  At  the  council 
of  Florence  (a.d.  1439)  this  body  was  designated  "the 
United  Armenian  Church."  Subsequently  it  suffered  some 
persecution  from  the  national  Church  of  Armenia  and  its 
patriarch. 

The  well  known  monastery  of  the  Mechitaristes  on  the 
island  of  St.  Lazaar  near  Venice  belongs  to  the  Uniat 
Armenian  Church.  It  is  named  after  its  founder  Mechitar, 
who  was  born  at  Sebaste  in  Asia  Minor  in  the  year  1676, 
and  who  entered  an  Armenian  convent  at  Erzeroum  in 
1691,  but  afterwards  obtained  permission  to  study  at 
Etchmiadzin.  Finding  that  he  could  learn  little  there,  he 
got  further  permission  to  go  to  Eome ;  but  owing  to  illness 
was  only  able  to  proceed  as  far  as  Constantinople,  where 
he  fell  in  with  some  able  Ptoman  Catholic  ecclesiastics, 
under  whose  influence  he  joined  their  Church.  Subse- 
quently he  founded  an  order  of  Armenian  monks  under 
a  modified  Benedictine  rule,  whicli  was  sanctioned  Ijy  Pope 
Clement  xi.,  who  made  Mecliitar  the  head  of   the  order 


548  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

with  the  title  of  abbot.  This  was  at  Modan  in  the  Morea, 
then  under  Venetian  rule.  The  conquest  of  the  peninsula 
by  the  Turks  led  Mechitar  and  his  monks  to  migrate  in  the 
year  1715  to  Venice,  where  the  Senate  granted  them  the 
island  of  St.  Lazaar.  This  monastery  became  an  important 
centre  of  scholarship,  and  the  monks  devoted  themselves  to 
the  spread  of  Armenian  literature  and  education.  The 
Coenobite  Armenian  monks  of  the  national  Church  follow  a 
form  of  the  rule  of  St.  Basil ;  those  who  live  a  hermit  life 
l)eloug  to  an  order  of  St.  Anthony. 

When  Constantinople  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Turks 
(a.d.  1453),  the  Armenian  bishop  of  Brusa  was  appointed 
patriarch  by  Mohammed  ii.,  and  put  under  the  patronage  and 
control  of  the  Ottoman  government  in  a  similar  way  to 
that  in  which  the  Greek  patriarch  was  treated.  He  became 
the  political  head  of  his  nation,  and  through  his  bishops  he 
was  made  responsible  for  the  government  of  his  people, 
with  authority  in  civil  as  well  as  in  religious  matters. 
For  this  purpose  the  Christian  population  was  divided  into 
communities  called  millets.  The  patriarch  was  supported 
by  a  council  of  bishops  and  clergy,  and  each  bishop  was  set 
over  his  own  province.  The  result  was  the  same  as  among 
the  Greeks.  The  Church  was  degraded  by  being  made 
subject  to  chief  clergy  who  were  also  officials  of  the  Turkish 
government,  and  slavish  sycophancy  prevailed  among  these 
officials  themselves.  Still,  the  Armenians  gained  something 
in  having  a  legal  constitution  under  guardians  of  their  own 
nationality.  At  first  this  only  applied  to  the  Western 
Armenians,  who  had  been  involved  in  the  fall  of  the 
Byzantine  Empire;  but  in  the  year  1514  the  Osmanh 
Turks  under  Selim  i.  concjuered  Armenia  proper,  and  Idris 
the  historian,  a  Kurd  from  Biltis,  was  then  entrusted  with 
the  task  of  organising  the  province.  In  order  to  hold  the 
district  effectually,  he  transplanted  into  it  a  number  of 
people  of  Ids  own  nationality.  Thus  from  this  time 
onwards  the  population  of  Armenia  has  been  mixed,  con- 
sisting mainly  of  the  two  races — Armenians  and  Kurds. 
Therefore,  while  on   the   one   hand   many  Armenians  have 


THE    ARMENIAN    CHURCH  549 

left  their  country  because  of  its  successive  troubles  and 
settled  in  Asia  Minor,  Constantinople,  and  other  Western 
places,  after  the  manner  of  the  Jewish  "  dispersion,"  in  the 
present  day  the  land  is  largely  stocked  with  a  rude,  alien, 
Mohammedan  race,  inferior  to  the  original  inhabitants  both 
in  civilisation  and  in  morals.  The  two  races  have  never 
coalesced.  Religious  more  than  racial  differences  have  kept 
them  apart.  This  fact  should  be  borne  in  mind  when  we 
consider  the  Armenian  problem.  Armenia  is  no  longer  a 
geographical  term  in  any  national  sense ;  it  represents  a 
persecuted  people,  almost  living  as  outlaws  both  in  their 
own  original  land  and  in  many  other  places,  chiefly  Turkish, 
Russian,  and  Persian. 

In  the  year  1603  the  catholicos  Melchizedic  called  in 
the  aid  of  the  Persian  Shah  Abbas  to  deliver  his  people 
from  Turkish  oppression ;  but  after  over-running  the  land 
the  shah  transported  many  of  the  Armenians  by  force  into 
his  own  country,  where  he  concentrated  them  in  a  colony 
near  Ispahan.  For  two  centuries  after  this  Armenia  was 
trampled  on  alternately  by  contending  Turkish  and  Persian 
armies.  The  Church  was  also  suffering  degradation  from 
the  sale  of  the  office  of  catholicos.  There  was  a  dispute 
between  the  Armenian  patriarchs  at  Constantinople  and 
Jerusalem  and  the  catholicos  as  to  the  supremacy  of 
the  latter.  In  the  year  1655,  Philip,  an  able  man,  only 
second  to  St.  Isaac  of  the  patristic  period  as  a  great 
ecclesiastic,  consolidated  the  Church  by  inducing  the  two 
patriarchs  to  submit  to  him  as  catholicos  of  all  the 
Armenian  Christians.  But  now  the  Armenians  were  dis- 
turbed by  Jesuit  missionaries,  and  the  office  of  catholicos 
again  fell  into  unworthy  hands,  so  that  during  the  first 
half  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  Church  was  in  a 
deplorable  condition.  This  was  the  time  of  the  catholicos 
Lazar,  who  left  behind  him  an  ill  name.  But  in  the  time 
of  Simon,  who  came  into  office  in  the  year  1763,  things 
began  to  improve  under  Russian  influences. 

Russia   acquired  Georgia  in   the  year   1801;    and  in 
1828  she  took  possession  of  part  of  Armenia,  including  the 


550  THE   CREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

ecclesiastical  capital,  Etehniiadzin,  witli  the  result  that  the 
catholicos  of  the  Armenian  Church  became  a  Eussian 
citizen.  Henceforth  that  ecclesiastic  was  responsible  to 
the  tsar,  though  still  elected  by  his  own  bishops.  His 
powers  were  now  limited  by  a  synod,  after  the  Eussian 
pattern. 

Protestant  and  evangelistic  work  was  commenced  in 
Armenia  in  the  year  1831  by  American  missionaries.  In 
1846  the  catholicos  anathematised  all  Armenians  who 
accepted  Protestant  notions,  with  the  result  that  a  separate 
Protestant  Church  was  founded  as  the  "  Evangelical  Church 
of  the  Armenians."  In  spite  of  opposition  from  France 
and  Eussia,  the  British  ambassador  succeeded  in  getting 
this  recognised  officially  as  a  millet.  The  American 
missionaries  founded  Armenian  colleges  on  the  Bosphorus, 
at  Kharput,  Marsivan,  and  Aintab. 

Meanwhile  the  greater  part  of  the  Armenian  nation 
still  remaining  under  the  Ottoman  government  suffered 
continuously  from  its  ruiaous  extortion  and  recurrent  acts 
of  violence.  Consular  reports  have  poured  in  an  unbroken 
stream  of  information  as  to  the  outrages  perpetrated  by 
the  Kurds  at  the  instigation  of  the  Ottoman  rulers.  By 
the  treaty  of  San  Stephano,  Turkey  promised  Eussia  to 
carry  out  reforms  "in  the  provinces  inhabited  by  the 
Armenians,  and  to  guarantee  their  security  against  the 
Kurds  and  the  Circassians."  But  on  the  insistence  of  Lord 
Beaconsfield  the  treaty  of  Berlin  (1878)  abrogated  the 
Eussian  protectorate  of  the  Armenian  Christians,  and 
conferred  it  on  the  six  signatory  powers,  to  whom  Turkey 
gave  the  pledge  of  reforms  in  Armenia.  In  the  same  year, 
by  the  Cyprus  Convention,  the  sultan  promised  Great 
Britain  to  introduce  necessary  reforms  "  for  the  protection 
of  the  Christians  and  other  subjects  of  the  Porte  "  in  the 
Turkish  Asiatic  territories.  Thus  first  the  protection  of 
the  Armenians  was  granted  to  and  accepted  by  Eussia ; 
then  it  was  taken  from  Eussia  and  assumed  by  Europe, 
but  with  an  additional  responsibility  assumed  by  England 
in  obtaining  her  own  special  pledge  from  the  sultan.     All 


THE    ARMENIAN    CHURCH  551 

this  has  been  a  dead  letter.  No  reforms  have  been  carried 
out.  No  compulsion  has  been  put  on  the  Turks  to  have 
tlie  sultan's  pledges  fulfilled.  It  is  true  that  in  1880 
identical  notes  were  presented  to  the  Porte  by  the  povi^ers, 
and  that  in  1881  the  British  ministry  sent  a  circular  note 
to  the  five  other  signatory  powers  in  the  Berlin  Treaty  ; 
but  these  powers,  especially  Germany  and  Russia,  were 
disinclined  to  act,  and  it  was  only  fleets  and  armies  that 
could  move  Turkey.  Thus  the  nominal  "  Concert  of  Europe" 
came  to  an  end.  Since  then  successive  British  ministries 
have  called  the  attention  of  the  sultan  to  his  failure  to 
keep  his  promises  pledged  in  the  Berlin  Treaty.  These 
communications  have  only  been  replied  to  with  polite 
evasions.^ 

In  the  year  1895  the  world  was  appalled  by  the 
awful  news  of  the  Armenian  Massacres.  Information 
came  through  by  degrees,  till  at  length  the  total  was 
summed  up  at  figures  growing  from  20,000  to  25,000, 
50,000,  and  even  120,000,  besides  5,000  to  6,000 
massacred  at  Constantinople.  Men,  women,  and  children 
had  been  done  to  death  amid  scenes  of  unspeakable  horror 
and  outrage.  It  seems  clear  that  the  Ottoman  government 
had  been  alarmed  by  reports  of  a  revolutionary  movement, 
to  which  the  more  daring  of  this  long-enduring  nation 
had  been  goaded  by  the  unchecked  irritation  of  Turkish 
misrule.  But  the  mass  of  the  people  had  not  taken  any 
steps  towards  rebellion.  How  could  they  have  done  so 
with  any  hope  of  success,  since  weapons  were  forbidden 
to  Christians,  while  Kurds  and  Turks  went  about  fully 
armed  ?  Moreover,  the  massacre  overwhelmed  the  innocent. 
There  was  no  attempt  to  select  the  suspected  revolutionists. 
Yet  there  was  a  species  of  very  careful  discrimination  which 
pointed  to  orders  from  headquarters,  and  disposed  of  the 
excuse  for  Turkey  which  her  champions  would  urge,  that 

^  While  this  chapter  is  in  the  press  the  newspapers  are  recording  the 
rejoicings  of  Turkey  in  the  establishment  of  a  constitution  with  freedom  for 
all  on  the  sworn  promise  of  the  sultan.  The  reader  will  know  with  what 
results. 


552  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

all  this  was  but  an  outbreak  of  Kurdish  savagery.  The 
slaughter  was  confined  to  two  classes  of  Armenians — the 
Gregorians  of  the  national  Church,  and  the  Protestants. 
Uniats  were  spared  as  under  the  protection  of  France,  and 
members  of  the  Greek  Church  for  fear  of  Russia. 


DIVISION  V 

THE    COPTIC    AND    ABYSSINIAN    CHURCHES 


CHAPTER    I 

ORIGIN    AND    EARLY    HISTORY    OF   THE 
COPTIC   CHURCH 

(a)  Eusebius  ;   Socrates  ;   Sozomen  ;  Theodoret ;   Evagrius  ;  John 

of  Ephesus ;  Cosmas  Indicopleustes,  Typographie  Chretienne 
(6tli  century) ;  John  of  Nikiou,  Chronicle  (7th  century), 
French  trans.,  1883  ;  Malan,  Documents  of  the  Coptic  Church, 
Eng.  trans. 

(b)  Gibbon,  Decline  and  Fall,  chap,  xlvii. ;  Neale,  Patriarchate  of 

Alexandria ;  Hefele,  History  of  the  Councils,  Eng.  trans., 
vols,  iii.,  iv. ;  Vlieger,  Origin  and  Early  History  of  the  Coptic 
Church,  1900 ;  Dorner,  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  Eng. 
trans.,  Div.  ii.  vol.  i. ;  Leipoldt,  Schenute  von  Atripe,  1903. 

The  Coptic  Church  is  the  ancient  national  Church  of 
Egypt,  which  was  separated  from  the  Greek  Church  in 
the  fifth  century  because  it  did  not  accept  the  decision  of 
the  council  of  Chalcedon,  just  as  the  Syrian  Church  had 
been  cut  off  by  its  refusal  to  admit  the  verdict  of  the 
council  of  Ephesus.  While  the  Syrians  adhered  to  Nestori- 
anism,  the  Copts  maintained  its  extreme  opposite  — 
Monophysitism.  It  is  not  correct  to  call  them  "  Jacobites  " 
— the  title  of  the  Syrian  Christians  who  hold  the  same 
doctrine,  because  their  position  is  independent  of  the  more 
Eastern  movement,  and  dates  back  to  an  earlier  period. 
The  few  Egyptian  Christians  in  communion  with  Constanti- 

553 


554  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

uople  and  the  Greek  Chuicli  are  known  as  "  Melchites/'  the 
followers  of  the  imperial  policy.  The  name  "  Copt "  is  an 
adaptation  of  the  Greek  Aiguptos,  originally  used  for  the 
Nile  and  then  for  the  I  and  of  the  Nile,  which  is  a  Hellenised 
form  of  the  old  Egyptian  title,  Ha-ka-Ptah — "Houses  of 
Ptah,"  the  and  where  Ptah  dwells.  The  Arabs  call  ^  the 
Copts  QriUi.  Thufi  the  name  simply  means  Egyptian.^ 
It  has  come  to  have  an  ecclesiastical  significance,  be- 
cause most  of  the  Copts  are  of  the  Monophysite  Church 
in  E^ypt,  while  the  Mohammedans  are  known  as  Arabs, 
although  in  the  mixture  of  races  now  occupying  Egypt 
Berber  and  Nubian  blood  is  mingled  with  that  of  the  con- 
querors from  Arabia  as  well  as  such  of  the  native  Egyptian 
stock  as  went  over  to  the  Muslim  faith.  In  the  towns  the 
true  Egyptians  are  mainly  Christians ;  but  the  Fellaheen 
of  the  country,  evidently  constituting  the  original  indi- 
genous peasant  race,  as  their  resemblance  to  the  ancient 
monuments  testifies,  have  been  absorbed  to  a  great  extent 
into  Islam. 

The  Egyptian  Church  is  undoubtedly  one  of  the  most 
ancient  churches  ui  the  world,  dating  back  almost  if  not 
quite  to  apostolic  times,  although,  like  the  Eastern  Syrian, 
and  even  the  Roman  churches,  it  can  furnish  no  historical 
record  of  its  origin.  The  commonly  accepted  tradition 
that  it  was  founded  by  St.  Mark  cannot  be  traced  with 
certainty  earlier  than  the  fourth  century ;  ^  and  the  fact 
that  this  tradition  is  not  to  be  found  in  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  Origen,  or  any  other  writer  of  the  second  and 
third  centuries,  raises  our  doubts  about  its  historicity.      On 

1  Vlieger,  Origin  and  Early  History  of  the  Coptic  Church,  p.  7.  This 
etymology  is  now  almost  universally  accepted.  Others,  now  rejected,  are  the 
derivation  from  the  town  Coptos,  and  worse  than  that,  the  derivation  from 
the  Greek  Kbirrw,  indicating  either  (1)  schism,  or  (2)  circumcision. 

2  It  is  found  in  the  apocryphal  Acts  of  Barnabas,  which  may  perhaps  be 
as  early  as  the  third  century.  The  first  reference  to  it  in  history  is  by 
Eusebius,  who  only  makes  it  in  the  form  of  an  allusion  to  a  tradition  that 
he  does  not  undertake  to  authenticate  :  "and  they  say  that  this  Mark  was  the 
first  that  was  sent  to  Egypt,  and  that  he  proclaimed  the  gospel  which  he  had 
written,  and  first  established  churches  in  Alexandria"  {Hist.  Eccl.  ii.  16). 
Eusebius  says  that  Mark  was  succeeded  by  Annianus  ' '  when  Nero  was  in  the 


ORiniN  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  COPTIC  CHURCH       5,55 

the  Other  liaud,  tlie  personal  obscurity  of  St.  Mark — apart 
from  his  authorship  of  the  Second  Gospel — is  in  its  favour. 
Great  ancient  churches  were  eager  to  trace  their  origua  to 
apostles.  When  Antioch,  Alexandria's  rival,  claimed  St. 
Peter  for  its  founder  and  first  bishop,  it  is  not  likely 
that  the  Egyptian  patriarchate  would  voluntarily  accept 
a  second  place  by  putting  in  a  claim  for  no  more 
important  a  person  than  that  very  apostle's  secretary, 
unless  some  undeniable  testimony  had  determined  the 
matter.  On  this  account,  therefore,  we  may  admit  a 
shadowy  probability  that  tradition  is  right  here,  and  that 
St.  Mark  really  did  found  the  Church  of  Alexandria. 

In  Egypt  it  is  usual  to  refer  the  Babylon  from  which 
the  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter  is  dated  to  the  place  of  that 
name  du  the  Nile,  near  where  Cairo  now  stands,  and  the 
seat  of  an  important  bishopric  in  early  Christian  times. 
But  if  the  apostle  himself  as  well  as  his  secretary  had 
been  living  there,  how  shall  we  account  for  the  absolute 
silence  of  antiquity  as  to  St.  Peter's  residence  in  Egypt 
and  its  attributing  the  origin  of  the  Church  there  only  to 
St.  Mark  ? 

Although  among  the  Nile  villages  Christianity  has 
been  suppressed  by  the  Mohammedan  tyranny,  this 
melancholy  fact  should  not  blind  us  to  the  recollection 
that  in  early  times  it  found  a  very  fertile  field  in  Upper 
Egypt.  While  Alexandria  was  largely  Hellenised,  the 
country  parts  farther  south  remained  thoroughly  Egyptian. 
The  consequence  was  that  the  philosophic  metamorphosis 
of  the  ancient  cult,  that  gave  it  a  new  lease  of  life  in  the 
educated  Greek  area  of  Egypt,  was  never  accepted  or 
understood  among  the  simpler  folk  of  the  rural  districts. 
But  conservative  as  these  southern  people  were,  they 
failed  to  hold  to  their  old  gods  when  they  saw  them  trans- 
eighth  year  of  his  reign"  (ii.  24),  i.e.  in  a.d.  62.  If  he  means  that  Mark 
had  died  then,  apparently  a  martyr  to  the  Neronian  persecution,  this  is  not 
consistent  with  the  tradition  that  Mark  wrote  his  gospel  at  Rome  under  the 
influence  of  Peter,  or,  as  our  best  authority  IreuiPU*;  says,  after  Peter's  death. 
After  Eusebius,  later  references  to  Mark  in  Kgypt— in  Ei)iphanius,  Jerome, 
Nicephorus,  etc. — cannot  be  cited  as  affording  additioiiMl  testimony. 


550  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

formed  out  of  recognition  by  the  Hellenic  movement. 
Thus  they  had  been  tlung  into  a  state  of  bewilderment  before 
Christianity  appeared  as  a  new  claimant  for  their  faith,  with 
the  result  that  the  gospel  won  its  way  among  them  with  the 
more  ease.  Meanwhile,  in  the  Hellenised  north  Christianity 
was  adopted  and  adapted  by  the  specific  culture  of  the 
age,  and,  whether  in  heretical  Gnosticism  or  more  orthodox 
Origenism,  it  there  appeared  with  peculiarities  that  were 
never  appreciated  up  the  Nile.  The  consequence  was  a 
difference  between  the  purely  Coptic  churches  of  the  south 
and  the  Gr;eco-Egyptian  Church  of  Alexandria.  At  a  later 
time  we  shall  see  this  distinction  emphasised  by  doctrinal 
divisions  when  the  Byzantine  party  obtains  influence  at 
Alexandria  and  makes  that  city  the  seat  of  the  Melchites, 
while  the  Copts  hold  their  own  position  in  the  south.  It 
is  in  the  churches  of  the  Nile  valley  that  we  have  the  real 
root  and  spring  of  the  genuine  old  Coptic  Church.  These 
Copts  cared  little  for  the  enlightened  Alexandrian  theology. 
Their  literature  consisted  of  the  Bible  and  tales  of  saints 
and  martyrs. 

The  Church  in  Egypt  has  the  terrible  but  heroic 
distinction  of  being  the  most  repeatedly  and  continuously 
persecuted  body  of  Christians  all  down  the  ages  of  his- 
tory, from  the  second  century  almost  to  our  own  day. 
These  much  tried  people  endured  at  least  their  full 
share  of  persecution  under  the  Romans  during  the  two 
or  three  centuries  when  Christianity  was  always  illegal 
and  at  intervals  fiercely  assailed.  Neale  says  that  the 
Dominitian  persecution  does  not  appear  to  have  reached 
Egypt,  but  that  possibly  there  was  some  persecution 
there  under  Trajan.  But  the  first  persecution  of  which 
we  have  any  information  is  that  under  Septimius  Severus, 
which  was  concentrated  with  exceptional  severity  in  this 
province,  when  Leonidas,  the  father  of  Origen,  suffered 
martyrdom,  a  persecution  to  which  the  romantic  story  of 
Potamiciena  belongs.  Till  this  period  the  history  of  the 
Church  is  a  blank.  The  Decian,  which  was  the  first  of  the 
really  great  persecutions  deliberately  designed  to  destroy 


ORIGIN  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  COPTIC  CHURCH       557 

Christianity  on  lines  of  seriously  planned  State  policy,  fell 
with  exceptional  force  on  the  Christians  of  Egypt.  Then 
many  fled  to  the  desert,  only  to  be  seized  as  slaves  by  the 
Arabs.  The  Diocletian  persecution  was  also  severely  felt  in 
Egypt.  In  the  year  311,  Peter  the  bishop  of  Alexandria  was 
beheaded  without  a  trial  by  order  of  Maximin.  So  effectually 
were  the  horror  .and  the  heroism  of  this  persecution  branded 
into  the  memory  of  the  Church  tliat  the  Copts  named  the  new 
era  of  Diocletian  "  the  era  of  martyrs."  Of  course  Egypt 
shared  in  the  quiet  of  the  breathing  time  under  Galienus's 
edict  of  toleration,  and  in  the  peace  of  the  Church  that 
came  in  with  the  edict  of  Milan.  But  this  peace  proved 
to  be  disappointing  and  delusive.  Persecution  soon  revived 
in  new  forms,  now  claiming  Christianity  itself  as  an  excuse 
for  harshness  to  Christians.  The  Arian  heresy  first  appeared 
in  Alexandria,  and  the  worst  of  the  consequent  troubles 
were  felt  in  that  city,  under  the  infamous  rule  of  George 
the  Cappadocian,  whom  Constantius  forced  on  the  Church, 
ordained,  as  the  impartial  pagan  historian  Ammianus  says, 
"  against  his  own  and  the  public  interest."  ^  Athanasius 
tells  us  that  "  virgins  were  thrown  into  prison  ;  bishops 
were  led  away  in  chains  by  soldiers ;  the  houses  of  orphans 
and  widows  were  plundered,"  etc.^  According  to  Sozo- 
men,  George  "  imprisoned  and  maimed  many  men  and 
women,"  and  was  "  accounted  a  tyrant  and  became  an 
object  of  universal  hatred,"  ^  It  is  difficult  to  be  very 
severe  on  the  murderers  of  such  a  tyrant.  They  were 
pagans — not  Athanasian  Christians,  as  the  Arians  tried  to 
show. 

Arianism  was  suppressed ;  but  new  heresies  disturbing 
the  peace  of  the  Church  brought  their  train  of  troubles 
to  Egypt.  After  the  severance  of  the  Monophysite 
party  from  the  Greek  Church,  the  imperial  displeasure 
made  life  so  hard  for  the  Copts  that  they  were  ready  to 
welcome  the  Arab  iuxasion  as  a  relief.  But  it  was  not 
long    before   tliey    became    the    victims    of  Mohammedan 

^  Amm.  Marc.  xxii.  11.  ^  De  Fuga,  6. 

8  Hist.  Ecd.  iv.  10. 


558  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN  CHURCHES 

persecution.  With  every  change  of  masters  they  have 
hoped  for  better  times ;  but  whether  under  Arab,  Kurd,  or 
Turk,  the  Christians  have  always  been  the  sufferers  from 
each  new  invasion  and  fresh  conquest  of  Egypt,  in  additional 
exactions,  restrictions,  wrongs,  and  insults.  This  went  on 
until  modern  Europe  interfered  with  Egyptian  affairs,  and, 
last  of  all,  England  Ijrought  equal  justice  to  all  classes  and 
freedom  in  religion  for  all  faiths. 

Turning  to  the  internal  characteristics  of  the  Egyptian 
Church,  we  may  observe  how  in  patristic  times  Alex- 
andria and  the  Delta,  the  cultivated  north,  were  marked 
by  liberalism  both  in  polity  and  in  doctrine.  The  sacer- 
dotal and  episcopal  claims  of  Catholicism  were  slower 
to  make  themselves  felt  here  than  in  any  other  Church. 
Eutychius,  a  patriarch  of  Alexandria  in  the  tenth  century, 
records  a  very  significant  tradition  throwing  light  on 
primitive  times.  He  states  that  "  St.  Mark  along  with 
Ananias " — who  is  reckoned  St.  Mark's  successor  in  the 
"  episcopate  " — "  ordained  twelve  presbyters  to  remain 
with  the  patriarch ;  so  that  when  the  patriarchate  should 
become  vacant  they  might  elect  one  out  of  the  twelve,  on 
whose  head  the  other  eleven  should  lay  their  hands,  and 
give  him  benediction  and  constitute  him  patriarch."  ^  After 
citing  this  statement,  Neale  adds  that  "  so  monstrous  a 
story  "  would  lead  us  to  think  the  author  a  fabricator  but 
for  St.  Jerome,  wlio  says  that  "  at  Alexandria  till  the  middle 
of  the  third  century  the  presbyters  nominated  and  elected 
from  among  themselves  to  the  higher  dignity  of  bishop,"  ^ 
He  attempts  to  save  the  situation  by  advancing  the  alter- 
native explanations,  that  either  this  was  only  an  election 
l)y  the  presbyters,  not  a  consecration,  or  the  twelve  must 
have  constitued  an  "episcopal  college." ^  Both  of  these 
hypotheses  are  purely  conjectural.  They  imply  a  regularity 
of  episcopal  ordination  that  was  not  enforced  in  early  times. 
Bishop  Wordsworth  has  shown  that  presbyterian  ordination 

^  Annales  in  Mign.e,  tome  iii.  p.  982. 

^  Eplst.  14(;. 

»  Ojms  e.i/.  J..  11. 


ORIGIN  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  COPTIC  CHURCH       559 

was  not  unknown.^  It  would  appear  that  a  presljyterian 
government  was  maintained  in  Egyjtt  after  it  had  been 
superseded  by  episcopal  government  in  other  provinces,  and 
that  even  after  the  recognition  of  the  three  orders,  the 
second  order,  the  presbyterate,  remained  here  more  important 
for  a  long  time.  There  were  fewer  bishops  in  proportion 
to  the  Christian  population  ;  the  presbyters  ia  the  local 
churches  over  which  they  presided  as  individual  pastors 
were  more  independent  ;  and  the  personal  prominence  of 
conspicuous  elders  was  more  marked  in  Egypt  than  else- 
where. Nothing  is  more  striking  in  the  clerical  develop- 
ment of  the  Catholic  Church,  than  the  disappearance  of 
the  elder  from  an  active  part  in  affah's.  He  seems  to  be 
squeezed  out  between  the  bishop  and  the  deacon.  He  has 
his  seat  in  the  apse  at  the  communion ;  but  when  we 
come  to  movements  that  excite  public  attention  he  is  lost 
to  sight,  and  we  have  only  the  bishop  and  his  attendant 
deacon  in  view.  But  this  picture  does  not  represent  the 
situation  in  Egypt,  where  we  often  meet  with  important 
elders.  Two  familiar  examples  spring  into  our  minds 
immediately  we  reflect  on  the  Alexandrian  position.  Origen 
was  a  presbyter — though  ordained  at  Caesarea  and  therefore 
not  reckoned  as  such  by  his  bishop  Demetrius  ;  Arius,  too,  was 
a  presbyter.  Further,  Professor  Harnack  has  shown  that 
"  unless  all  signs  deceive  us,  we  find  that  in  Egypt  generally, 
and  especially  at  Alexandria,  the  institution  of  teachers 
survived  longest  in  juxtaposition  with  the  episcopal  organisa- 
tion of  the  churches,  though  their  right  to  speak  at  services 
of  worship  had  expired."  ^ 

^  The  Ministry  of  Orace,  p.  140,  where  the  13th  canon  of  Ancyra  is  cited, 
namely,  "  Country  bishops  (xwpe7rt(r/co7rot)are  not  permitted  to  ordain  (xetpo- 
Toi'€i»')  presbyters  or  deacons,  nor  even  is  it  permitted  to  city  presbyters  to  do  so 
except  with  the  licence  (xw/)is  rod  iinTpairrivaL)  in  writing  of  the  bishop  in  each 
diocese."  Here  we  see  the  city  presbyter  (1)  reckoned  above  the  country  bishop, 
and  (2)  permitted  to  ordain  presbyters  and  deacons,  the  only  restriction  on  his 
liberty  in  this  matter  being  the  requirement  of  a  written  licence  from  his  bishop. 

^  Expansion  of  Christianity,  Eng.  trans.,  vol.  i.  p.  451.  Dionysius  of 
Alexandria,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  third  century,  referring  to  his  visits  to 
Egyptian  villages,  says,  "  I  called  together  the  presbyters  and  teachers  of  the 
brethren  in  the  villages"  (Eus.  Hist.  Eccl.  vii.  24). 


560  THE    TxREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

In  the  second  place,  when  making  a  general  survey  of 
the  early  history  of  the  Chnrch  in  Egypt,  we  are  struck 
with  its  intellectual  energy  and  freedom.  It  had  every 
advantage  in  these  respects  to  start  with.  Alexandria 
was  the  centre  of  an  old  school  of  learning,  where  the 
grammarians  pursued  the  study  of  the  classics,  and  the 
rhetoricians  preached  from  texts  in  Homer,  the  most 
venerable  of  those  classics.  It  was  also  a  seat  of  philo- 
sophical speculation,  and  here  Neo-Platonism  grew  up  side 
by  side  with  Christian  theology.  The  Jewish  scholarship 
represented  by  the  Book  of  Wisdom  and  the  teachings  of 
Philo  taught  people  who  used  the  Septuagint  to  combine 
its  sacred  authority  with  Platonic  and  Stoic  speculations. 
As  a  great  centre  of  commerce,  Alexandria  came  under  the 
influences  of  Rome  and  Athens,  and  combined  these  with 
Persian  and  even  Indian  ideas.  The  most  cosmopolitan 
of  all  the  great  seats  of  scholarship,  this  city,  when  it 
received  Christianity,  was  prepared  to  give  the  new 
doctrine  the  freest  and  most  varied  treatment.  Here  it 
was  that  the  gospel  came  into  contact  with  the  widest, 
fullest,  most  energetic  thought  of  the  age.  The  faith  that 
had  first  appeared  among  the  valleys  of  Galilee  was  now 
launched  on  the  ocean  of  the  world's  intellectual  life.' 
The  inevitable  consequences  followed.  Sometimes  it  was 
perverted  out  of  all  recognition ;  at  other  times,  while 
retaining  its  essential  features,  it  was  enriched  by  a  noble, 
reverent  development  of  its  vital  truths.  The  danger  in 
both  cases  was  that  it  should  become  little  else  than  a  gnosis, 
an  intellectual  system,  a  Christian  theodicy,  explaining  the 
universe  in  terms  of  God  as  revealed  in  Christ.  From 
this  fate  it  was  saved  in  early  times  by  persecution.  The 
dungeon,  the  torture  chamber,  and  the  executioner's  sword 
taught  men  to  take  their  religion  seriously  as  a  matter  of 
life  and  death. 

Egypt  was  the  birthplace  of  speculative  theology,  which 
may  be  said  to  have  begun  with  the  Gnostics  in  the  first  half 
of  the  second  century.  There  was  Syrian  Gnosticism  and 
Asiatic  Gnosticism,  but  neither  of  these  would  bear  compari- 


ORIGIN  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  COPTIC  CHURCH       561 

son  for  a  moment  in  regard  to  intellectual  vigour  or  influence 
on  the  Church's  thought  with  the  Gnosticism  of  Alexandria. 
Irenaeus  and  Hippolytus  discussed  and  condemned  a  great 
variety  of  Gnostic  systems ;  hut  all  the  while  they  had  in 
mind  the  one  system  of  Valentiuus  as  the  most  serious 
rival  of  Catholic  orthodoxy,  winning  its  converts  in  the 
cultivated  and  fashionable  Christian  society  at  Home 
as  well  as  in  many  parts  of  the  empire — and  probably 
Valentinus  was  an  Alexandrian. 

Then  it  was  in  Alexandria  that  speculative  Christian 
theology  sprang  up  in  opposition  to  the  dangerous  dis- 
integrating Gnosticism  of  the  heretics  as  itself  a  true 
gnosis.  Clement  calls  the  enlightened  Christian  a  Gnostic. 
In  his  De  Principiis  Origen  gives  us  the  earliest  treatise 
on  systematic  theology  in  the  Church.  These  scholars  of 
Alexandria  wrote  in  Greek ;  they  belonged  to  the  northern 
Hellenised  community  of  Christians ;  but  we  must  not 
forget  that  this  was  on  the  Delta  and  by  the  Nile.  Origen, 
the  greatest  of  them  all,  was  a  Copt.  Thus  the  most 
daring  thinker  in  the  early  Church  was  not  of  the  Hellenic 
stock,  where  we  look  first  for  the  budding  of  the  speculative 
intellect ;  he  was  of  the  race  of  men  who  built  the 
Pyramids  and  Karnak,  and  wrote  "  the  Book  of  the  Dead," 
and  gave  the  world  the  myth  of  Osiris. 

Coming  down  a  little  later,  we  see  Arianism  —  the 
heresy  that  most  seriously  divided  the  Church  for  two 
generations,  the  only  heresy  that  ever  had  the  upper  hand 
in  Christendom — first  promulgated  and  first  condemned  in 
Egypt.  But  it  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  this  system,  while 
it  arose  at  Alexandria,  found  more  real  support  in  Con- 
stantinople and  other  cities  away  from  Egypt.  That 
is  one  of  the  facts  to  be  borne  in  mind  when  we  find 
Origen  and  his  school  charged  with  the  parentage  of 
Arianism.  A  full  enquiry  brings  out  results  in  which 
two  such  very  different  scholars  as  Cardinal  Newman 
and  Professor  Harnack  are  found  for  once  to  be  agree- 
ing. It  is  not  to  Alexandria,  but  to  Antioch ;  not  to 
Origen,  but  to  Lucian,  that  we  are  to  trace  the  seeds 
36 


5G2  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTEItN    CHURCHES 

and  sources  of  Aiianism.^  Arias  was  condemned  in  his 
own  Church  at  Alexandria  quite  early  in  the  develop- 
ment of  his  teaching,  and  tlie  place  was  soon  made  too 
hot  for  him,  so  that  he  had  to  escape.  After  that  it  is 
not  likely  that  anything  more  would  have  been  heard  of 
Arianism  if  he  had  not  made  a  convert  of  the  influential 
Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  court  chaplain  to  Constantine,  a 
vigorous,  astute,  unscrupulous  ecclesiastical  politician.  Sub- 
se(piently,  whenever  the  heresy  is  dominant  in  Alex- 
andria, that  is  only  owing  to  the  forcible  intrusion  of  an 
alien  bishop,  who  obtains  and  holds  the  patriarchal 
chair  by  the  aid  of  the  imperial  troops.  In  this  way 
Arianism  in  Egypt  came  to  be  synonymous  with  tyranny 
and  oppression,  and  its  supremacy  involved  the  Coptic 
Church  in  persecution. 

It  was  not  here,  therefore,  that  the  Copts  were  in- 
clined to  fall  out  of  line  with  the  CathoHc  Church.  Their 
tendency  drove  them  in  quite  the  opposite  direction.  It 
pointed  to  the  accentuation  of  the  idea  of  the  Divinity  of 
Christ  to  the  neglect  of  His  humanity.  Alexandria  took 
the  lead  in  opposition  to  Nestorianism.  Here,  as  so  often 
in  other  connections,  the  rivalry  between  Alexandria  and 
Constantinople  embittered  the  controversy,  degrading  it  with 
political  intrigue  and  the  heat  of  offensive  personalities, 
Cyril  has  been  canonised  and  his  writings  are  accounted 
standards  of  orthodoxy.  But  the  unprejudiced  reader 
must  admit  that  they  go  a  long  way  to  prepare  for  the 
heresy  that  was  to  be  condemned  at  the  next  oecumenical 
council,  the  denial  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ  by  the 
virtual  suppresion  of  the  human. 

Eutyches  followed  on  similar  lines,  and  yet  his  develop- 
ment of  the  same  trend  of  thought  did  not  meet  with  the 
approval  of  the  Church,  and  came  under  condemnation  as 
a  heresy.  Now  it  is  true  that  this  heresy  first  appeared 
at  Constantinople.  Its  advocate  Eutyches  was  the  archi- 
mandrite of  a  large  monastery  near  that  city.  But  he 
was  a  friend  of  Cyril,  from  whom  he  had  received  a  copy 

1  See  p.  43. 


ORIGIN  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  COPTIC  CHURCH       568 

of  the  Acts  of  the  council  of  Epliesus,  and  he  had 
vigorously  seconded  the  patriarch  of  Alexandria  during 
the  Nestorian  controversy,  l:)ehaving  as  a  fiery  opponent 
of  Nestorianism.  Moreover,  Cyril's  immediate  successor 
Dioscurus  was  the  champion  of  Eutyches  and  the  author 
of  the  type  of  thought  less  crude  than  that  the  old 
arcliiniandrite  had  expounded,  which  went  by  the  name  of 
the  Monophysite  heresy.  The  disgraceful  proceedings  of  the 
"Eobber  Synod"  were  chiefly  due  to  the  conduct  of  Dioscurus 
and  his  monks — unworthy  representatives  of  the  Egyptian 
Church. 

Again  and  again  we  see  the  turbulent  Coptic  monks 

leading  the  mob  in  some  act  of  violence.     At  the  storming 

of  the  Serapeum,  in  the  murder  of  Hypathia,  during  the 

Monophysite  disputes,  when  the  worst  deeds  of  violence 

were  done,  if  this  was  not  by  the  soldiery,  it  was  by  the 

monks   who   poured  in  from  the  Nitrian  desert  or  some 

other  distant  retreat,  crowding  the  streets  of  Alexandria, 

and    stirring    up  the   dregs    of  the   populace   to   criminal 

outbreaks.      We    must  remember    that    monasticism    had 

first  appeared  in  Egypt.     Following  the  example  of  the 

Therapeutse,  first    as    solitaries    in  their  huts   and   caves, 

then,  in  the  second  stage,  founding  the  Coenobite  life,  the 

Egyptian    monks  laid  the  foundation  of  the  vast  system 

that  spread  over  Syria  and  Asia  Minor,  and  finally  took 

possession  of  the  whole  Church,  to  the  extent  of  securing 

the  position  that  though  a  man  might  be  a  monk  without 

becoming  a  saint,  he  could  not  be  a  saint  unless  he  had 

been  first  a  monk.      Now  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  there 

were  genuine  saints  among  the  monks.      The  ascetic  life 

had  a  fatal  attraction  for  the  strongest  natures ;  it  seemed 

to  present  the  loftiest  ideal  to  them.      Such  a  monk  as 

Father  Jeremiah,  the  hermit  whom  the  Emperor  Anastasius 

had  known  in  his  early  days,  and  whom  he  highly  honoured 

when  he  reached  the    imperial  throne,  appears    to    have 

been    a  really  good  man,  unselfish   and  unworldly.       No 

doubt   there   were  many   such,  whose   names  have  never 

been  preserved  in  history.     But  herein  lies  the  fatal  evil 


564  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

of  the  whole  system  as  it  was  developed  in  Egypt.  There 
were  monks  who  behaved  like  savages — ignorant,  super- 
stitious, ferocious  men.  Some  were  guilty  of  nameless 
vice.  But  these  degenerates  were  not  the  causes  of  the 
worst  evil  of  monasticism.  The  worst  mischief  was  wrought 
by  the  withdrawal  of  the  best  people  from  civic  and 
domestic  life.  Thus  the  population  of  Egypt  was  checked 
in  those  very  circles  that  should  have  dominated  it  if  the 
character  of  the  people  was  to  attain  a  high  standard,  and 
the  most  serviceable  men  were  withdrawn  from  the  service 
of  mankind.  This  was  felt  all  over  the  empire.  Eventually 
it  became  one  of  the  causes  of  the  fall  of  Eome.  But 
nowhere  did  it  have  more  serious  consequences  than  in 
Egypt,  the  scene  of  the  origin  of  monasticism  and  always 
that  of  its  greatest  popularity.  Mrs.  Butcher  describes 
this  rush  to  the  monasteries  as  "  the  suicide  of  a  nation." 

One  of  the  most  famous  of  the  Egyptian  monks  was 
Senuti,  who  lived  during  the  second  half  of  the  fourth 
century  and  the  first  half  of  the  fifth.  The  son  of  an 
Egyptian  farmer,  and  brought  up  as  a  shepherd  lad,  he 
entered  the  monastery  of  Panopolis,  near  Athrebi,  in  Upper 
Egypt,  and  became  a  venerated  monk,  credited  with  super- 
natural powers,  and  known  as  the  prophet.  Cyril  took  him 
to  the  council  of  Ephesus,  where  he  had  a  prominent  place 
as  a  vehement,  and  if  we  are  to  believe  his  disciple  and  suc- 
cessor Besa,  a  violent  part.  According  to  this  admirer  of 
the  venerated  monk,  Nestorius  entered  the  council  with 
great  pomp,  and,  seeing  the  roll  of  the  Gospels  on  the  lofty 
throne  in  the  centre  of  the  hall,  flung  it  down  and  seated 
himself  there ;  whereupon  Senuti  picked  up  the  volume 
and  hurled  it  at  Nestorius.  Naturally  the  proud  patriarch 
was  indignant,  especially  when  he  learned  that  his  assailant 
was  of  no  ecclesiastical  rank.  Cyril  quickly  remedied  that 
defect  by  creating  his  valiant  henchman  an  archimandrite 
on  the  spot.  How  far  this  story  is  to  be  believed  depends 
on  what  we  think  of  its  author  in  the  sequel.  He  goes 
on  to  say  that,  when  Cyril  had  started  back  for  Egypt  at 
the  conclusion  of  the  council  without  Senuti,  the  monk  was 


ORIGIN  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  COPTIC  CHURCH      565 

wafted  across  on  a  cloud.  So  highly  venerated  was  he, 
that  Maximus,  the  Roman  commander,  before  setting  out 
on  an  expedition  against  those  obscure  people  called  the 
Blemmys,  sought  him  out  in  the  desert  for  his  blessing, 
much  to  the  saint's  annoyance  at  the  interruption.  The 
idea  that  he  joined  the  extreme  party  of  Dioscurus  after 
the  council  of  Chalcedon  may  be  an  error.^  Be  that  as  it 
may,  undoubtedly  he  was  a  bitter  leader  in  the  persecution 
of  Nestorius  till  the  death  of  that  unhappy  ecclesiastic. 
Senuti  is  said  to  have  lived  to  the  wonderful  age  of  118, 
and  to  have  died  when  Timothy  ^lurus  was  patriarch.  The 
remains  of  his  writings  are  gathered  up  among  the  frag- 
ments of  early  Coptic  literature.  It  is  a  singular  fact  that 
Senuti  is  never  mentioned  by  any  Greek  or  Latin  author. 
Prominent  as  his  friend  Besa  suggests  his  position  at  the 
council  of  Ephesus  to  have  been,  none  of  our  other  accounts 
of  that  council  make  the  least  reference  to  him.  This 
silence  rather  favours  the  view  that  he  did  overstep  the 
narrow  line  of  orthodoxy  in  his  unflagging  opposition  to 
Nestorianism.  If  that  were  the  case,  we  can  well  under- 
stand why  the  friends  and  admirers  of  Cyril  would  observe 
a  discreet  silence  with  regard  to  a  man  who,  though  of 
dubious  orthodoxy,  had  nevertheless  been  that  great 
patriarch's  chief  trusted  assistant.  Among  the  Copts  no 
saint  could  be  more  highly  venerated ;  but  the  Copts  are 
heretics. 

The  circumstances  that  led  to  the  final  severance  of 
the  Coptic  Church  have  already  been  traced  in  earlier 
chapters.2  The  decree  of  Chalcedon  deposing  Dioscurus 
was  the  direct  cause.  The  thirteen  bishops  who  had 
accompanied  him  were  in  a  terrible  dilemma.  Hieracles, 
their  spokesman,  pointed  to  a  canon  of  Nica^a,  declaring 
that  the  whole  of  Egypt  should  follow  the  bishop  of 
Alexandria  and  do  nothing  without  him.      It  was  of   no 

1  This  is  asserted  as  a  positive  fact  by  Salmon  in  Smith's  Die.  of  Chr. 
Biog.  vol.  iv.  p.  612*,  but  Leipoldt  in  his  work,  Schenute  von  Atripe,  main- 
tains that  there  is  no  evidence  whatever  of  his  having  supported  Dioscurus. 

"  Part  I.  chaps,  v.  vi. 


566  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

avail.  The  papal  legato  who  ruled  the  council  treated 
their  plea  with  contempt.  "  Have  pity  on  us ;  have  pitv 
on  us  ! "  cried  the  feeble  old  men.  No  pity  was  shown 
them.  They  were  forced  to  sign  the  deposition  of  their 
patriarch,  and  then  packed  off  to  Alexandria  to  see  to  the 
election  of  his  successor.  There  they  were  met  with  a 
storm  of  indignation.  Proterius,  who  had  been  serving  as 
locum  tenens  for  Dioscurus  during  his  absence,  and  who 
therefore  was  presumed  to  be  one  of  his  supporters,  now 
turned  round  to  accept  ordination  on  the  lines  of  Chalcedou. 
This  raised  the  passions  of  the  populace  to  fever  heat.  We 
cannot  be  surprised  that  the  excited  people,  hating  the 
renegade  for  his  treason  to  their  banished  patriarch,  and 
taking  advantage  of  the  temjDorary  weakness  of  the  govern- 
ment at  the  death  of  Marcian,rose  in  a  mad  riot, and  murdered 
the  man  they  regarded  as  a  Judas.  Thus  another  red  stain 
was  added  to  the  annals  of  the  Coptic  Church.  When,  on 
the  death  of  the  banished  patriarch  Dioscurus,  Timothy 
^lurus  was  elected  his  successor  at  Alexandria,  the  rivalry 
of  the  two  parties  in  the  city  was  revived.  This  was  before 
the  murder  of  Proterius ;  but  that  crime  did  not  end  the 
quarrel.  The  new  Emperor  Leo  banished  J^lurus,  and  a 
really  good  man,  Timothy  Surus  or  Salofaciolus,  was  elected 
to  the  patriarchate  on  the  basis  of  Chalcedon.  So  highly 
respected  was  he  that  people  would  greet  him  in  the  street, 
saying,  "  Even  if  we  do  not  communicate  with  thee,  yet  we 
love  thee."  Efforts  were  now  made  by  moderate  men  to 
bring  about  a  settlement  that  should  unite  the  two  parties. 
But  the  cleavage  was  too  deep.  It  was  racial  as  well  as 
theological.  The  party  of  Chalcedon,  the  Melchites,  were 
Greek ;  the  Copts  were  Mouophysite  almost  to  a  man. 
This  is  the  secret  of  the  obstinate  continuance  of  the 
schism.  It  was  a  national  movement,  and  the  intrusion 
of  patriarchs  of  the  Greek  persuasion  was  resented  as  an 
outrage  on  the  rights  of  the  national  Church.  The  new 
Coptic  patriarch,  John  Talai,  who  seems  to  have  acted  weakly 
if  not  dishonourably  in  accepting  the  vacant  post  on  the 
death  of  the  good  Timothy  (a.d.  482),  when  the  emperor  had 


ORIGIN  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  COPTIC  CHURCH       567 

commissioned  him  only  to  trj  to  bring  about  a  reconcilia- 
tion between  the  two  parties,  was  really  the  representative 
of  the  national  Church  as  against  the  Greeks,  and  of 
Christian  rights  and  liberties  generally  as  against  imi)erial 
interference.  It  was  the  same  even  with  that  unwortliy 
man  Peter  Mongus,  whose  election  the  emperor  encouraged 
in  place  of  John,  since  the  patriarch's  double-dealing  had 
given  great  offence  at  Court. 

Evagrius  states  that,  as  a  result  of  Zeno's  Henoticon — 
which  simply  silenced  controversy  without  settling  it, 
"  when  this  had  been  read,  all  the  Alexandrians  united 
themselves  to  the  holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church."  ^ 
That,  however,  is  not  correct.  Evagrius  is  a  fair-minded 
historian,  but  always  too  anxious  to  make  as  little  as  possible 
of  ecclesiastical  divisions — a  rare  fault  in  his  age  and  venial. 
In  point  of  fact,  when  Peter  Mongus  signed  the  Henotirov, 
the  extreme  Monophysites  broke  off  from  communion  with 
him,  and  so  earned  the  title  of  the  AcepJiali.  Still,  there 
was  outward  peace ;  and  this  was  maintained  in  Egypt 
under  Zeno's  successor,  the  amiable  Anastasius,  whose 
reign  saw  the  quarrel  transferred  to  Constantinople  on 
account  of  the  favour  shown  by  the  emperor  to  the 
Monophysites.  On  his  death  and  the  accession  of  Justin 
to  the  throne  (a.d.  518),  the  temporary  Monophysite 
triumph  was  ended,  the  Henoticon  cancelled,  and  all  the 
Church  required  to  agree  to  the  decision  of  Chalcedon, 
with  the  inevitable  consequence  that  the  temporary  reunion 
of  Egypt  with  the  orthodox  Church  was  ended.  Thus  the 
Copts  were  again  cut  off  as  a  heretical  body. 

Then  came  the  controversy  on  "  The  Three  Chapters  " 
under  Justinian.  The  weak  emperor  had  been  persuaded 
to  condemn  Theodoret,  Ibas,  and  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia 
as  guilty  of  Nestorianism.  It  was  suggested  that  the  real 
objection  to  the  council  of  Chalcedon  lay  in  its  approval  of 
these  three  theologians,  rather  than  in  its  doctrinal  state- 
ments. Thus  it  was  hoped  that  by  making  scapegoats  of  the 
dead  men,  who  could  not  defend  their  case,  all  parties  might 
1  mst.  Ecd.  iii.  14. 


568  THE   GREEK   AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

be  sutisfied.  The  second  council  of  Constantinople  (a.d.  553) 
took  a  middle  course,  and,  while  anathematising  "  The  Three 
Chapters  "  in  which  their  supposed  errors  were  set  forth, 
exonerated  two  of  them,  Theodoret  and  Ibas,  and  only 
condemned  the  third,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  who  no 
dou])t  was  the  actual  originator  of  Nestorianism.  Thus 
this  council  leaned  towards  the  Monophysite  position. 
But  the  Egyptian  Church  took  no  notice  of  its  decisions. 
Then  came  Jacob  al  Bardai  and  his  vigorous  campaign  in  Syria 
under  the  patronage  of  the  Empress  Theodora,  the  result 
of  which  was  the  separation  of  the  Syrian  Jacobite  Church 
from  the  Nestorians  and  a  great  addition  to  the  Monophysite 
strength  in  the  East.  Such  a  triumphant  proselytising  in 
favour  of  their  theology  could  not  but  be  very  encouraging 
to  the  Copts.  Unfortunately  the  new  controversy  with 
the  Julianists  on  the  incorruptibility  of  our  Lord's  body— 
which  Julian  of  Halicarnassus  had  maintained — brought 
fresh  trouble  to  the  Church  of  Alexandria.  It  was  a 
great  pity  that  the  Monophysites  should  now  begin  to 
quarrel  among  themselves  just  when  they  were  becoming 
most  powerful.  But  it  was  the  same  with  the  Protestants 
in  the  later  days  of  Luther  and  Zwingli,  and  with  the 
Methodists  in  the  separation  between  Wesley  and 
Whitfield.  Expediency  counts  for  nothing  when  men's 
convictions  are  at  stake.  The  Julianist  division  at 
Alexandria  facilitated  the  appointment  of  an  orthodox 
patriarch — one  of  the  Greek  persuasion — who  of  course 
was  acceptable  to  neither  body  of  Monophysites.  It  is 
like  the  case  in  an  English  election  when  a  Conservative 
is  returned  for  a  Liberal  constituency  because  there  is  a 
split  in  the  Liberal  camp.  In  this  case,  however,  the 
appointment  of  a  Melchite  meant  the  victory  of  the 
imperial  over  the  popular  party.  Syria  and  in  a  measure 
Armenia,  as  well  as  Egypt  and  Abyssinia,  were  now  of  the 
Monophysite  persuasion. 

The  Monothelete  proposal  was  the  last  attempt  at 
reunion  with  the  lost  provinces  on  doctrinal  grounds. 
The  case  was  desperate.     The  lopping  off  of  these  limbs 


ORIGIN  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  COPTIC  CHURCH      569 

from  the  orthodox  Church  was  a  very  serious  matter 
when  regarded  from  the  Catholic  standpoint.  But  another 
consideration  gave  urgency  to  the  situation.  First  Persia, 
the  age-long  rival  of  the  Eoman  Empire  of  the  East, 
had  hecome  aggressive,  and  had  carried  its  victories  even 
into  Egypt.  Tlien  a  new  terror  had  risen  in  tlie  South, 
where  it  was  least  expected,  and  Arabia  threatened  ruin 
both  to  Church  and  empire  in  the  sudden  rise  and 
triumphant  march  of  Islam.  Thus  there  was  a  strong 
political  as  well  as  a  grave  religious  motive  for  uniting 
the  divided  Church  and  empire.  Although  proposed  by 
the  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  the  Monothelete  idea  was 
really  put  forth  on  lines  of  imperial  policy.  It  was  offered 
to  the  Church  by  the  government ;  and  it  made  some 
headway  under  the  influence  of  authority.  Cyrus  the 
bishop  of  Phasis,  on  condition  of  accepting  the  novel 
doctrine,  was  made  patriarch  of  Alexandria  by  the  Emperor 
Heraclius  (a.d.  630);  and  he  won  over  some  of  the  Mono- 
physites.  But  he  could  not  make  much  headway,  and 
meanwhile  Sophronius,  the  champion  of  orthodoxy,  was 
successfully  resisting  the  spread  of  the  new  heresy  in  the 
Greek  Church.  The  Edhesis  which  the  Emperor  Heraclius 
issued  as  an  authoritative  edict  of  religious  doctrine  (a.d. 
638),  plainly  leaning  towards  the  Monothelete  idea,  though 
approved  by  councils  at  Constantinople  and  Alexandria, 
never  made  any  progress  towards  securing  real  conviction 
among  the  people  of  either  party.  The  whole  idea  of  this 
latest  refinement  of  Christology  was  inept  and  futile. 
It  deserved  no  better  fate,  for  it  was  founded  on  policy, 
not  on  conviction  ;  and  it  was  promoted  by  State  authority, 
not  by  religious  reasoning.  Equally  political,  equally 
resting  on  government  influence,  was  the  Type^  which 
the  Emperor  Constans  put  forth  in  the  year  648,  and 
which,  without  pretending  to  favour  either  side,  forbade 
any  further  controversy  and  threatened  severe  penalties 
against  all  who  should  dare  to  break  the  rule  of  silence. 
About  thirty  years  later  the  heresy  was  condemned  by  the 
third  council  of  Constantinople  (a.d.  680-681). 


670  THE   GREEK   AND   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

None  of  these  attempts  at  reconciliation,  compromise, 
and  suppression  had  succeeded  in  bringing  back  the 
Egyptian  national  Church  into  union  with  the  Greek 
Church.  It  has  ever  since  remained  in  separation.  With 
the  exception  of  some  6,000  Melchites,  mostly  Greeks, 
nearly  all  the  Christians  in  Egypt  at  the  present  day  are 
Monophysites.  The  national  Church  of  Egypt,  the  Coptic 
Church,  is  of  the  same  faith  as  the  Jacobite  Church  in 
Syria. 

Eeturning  for  a  little  to  the  internal  condition  of  the 
Coptic  Church  during  this  period,  we  see  that  for  sixty 
years  after  the  banishment  of  John  Talai  there  had  been 
no  Melchite  patriarch  in  Egypt.  Then  Justinian  forced  a 
man  named  Paul  into  the  vacant  post  (a.d.  541).  No 
Copt  would  recognise  him.  But  a  cruel  injustice  was  done 
to  the  national  Church  in  transferring  its  revenues  to  the 
Melchite  patriarch,  who  enjoyed  them  in  his  sinecure  office, 
while  the  patriarch  who  was  actually  working  at  the  head 
of  the  Church  in  Egypt  was  left  dependent  on  the  freewill 
offerings  of  his  people.  It  was  the  same  with  the  clergy  under 
him.  The  ecclesiastical  endowments  and  official  revenues 
were  confiscated  for  the  little  handful  of  Melchites.  The 
situation  is  parallel  to  that  of  the  United  Free  Church  in 
Scotland  in  our  own  day;  and  that  without  any  parliament  to 
secure  a  tolerable  equity.  Thus  the  Coptic  Church  was  not 
only  anathematised  by  the  orthodox  Church  ;  it  was  disestab- 
lished and  disendowed  by  the  State.  Yet  it  was  not  crushed ; 
nor  did  the  small  favoured  community  gain  anything  but  the 
sordid  profit  of  revenue  by  the  unfair  transaction.  "With 
all  its  endowments  it  never  flourished,  never  grew.  It  has 
remained  to  this  day  a  phantom  Church  with  offices,  but 
without  functions,  and  in  all  respects  an  alien  in  the  land 
on  which  it  was  forced  many  centuries  ago.  After  the 
Mohammedan  invasion,  this  Melchite  organisation  lost  its 
privileges  and  its  dues. 

Meanwhile  the  real  Church  of  Egypt  became  more 
national.  The  Hturgies  were  now  translated  into  the  Coptic 
language.      Early  in   the  reign  of  the   Emperor   Maurice 


ORIGIN  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  COPTIC  CHURCH       571 

(a.d.  582)  there  was  a  revolt  in  North  Egypt,  headed  by 
three  brothers— Abaskiron,  Mena,  and  James — against  the 
blue,  or  imperialist  party,  which  for  a  time  succeeded  in 
wresting  almost  the  whole  of  the  Delta  from  the  govern- 
ment. Other  revolts  followed.  How  plainly  we  can  see 
in  this  seething  discontent  the  undermining  of  the  Byzantine 
power  in  Egypt.  It  fell  for  a  time  under  the  Persian 
invasion,  which  could  not  have  been  altogether  unwel- 
come to  the  Copts.  It  was  temporarily  restored  by  the 
victories  of  that  great  military  genius,  the  Emperor 
Heraclius.  But  the  situation  was  such  that  the  empire 
could  not  expect  to  find  loyal  defence  in  Egypt  against 
the  dread  Mohammedan  invasion,  when  the  Arab  army 
was  on  the  wing  like  a  swarm  of  locusts.  And  yet 
defence  now  meant  nothing  less  than  protection  of 
Christendom  from  imminent  total  ruin. 


CHAPTEE    II 

THE  PERSIAN  AND  ARAB  CONQUESTS 

(a)  The  Arabian  authors  previously  named  :  Patrologia  Orientalis, 
i.  4,  Peter  i.  to  Benjamin  i.,  Arabic  text  and  Eng.  trans.  ; 
Theophanes,  Chronoyraphia ;  John  of  Nikiou,  Chronicle, 
French  trans.  ;  Malan,  Documents  of  the  Coptic  Church, 
especially  Makrizi,  Hist,  of  Copts ;  Renaudot,  Historia 
Patriarcharum  Alexandrinorum  Jacobitarum  (18th  cent.). 

(6)  Gibbon,  chaps,  xlvii.  and  li. ;  Neale,  Patriarchate  of  Alex- 
andria ;  Mrs.  Butcher,  History  of  the  Church  in  Eyypt,  1897  ; 
Butler,  Arab  Cumpiest  of  Egypt,  1902  ;  Lane  Poole,  Hist,  of 
Egypt  in  the  Middle  Ages,  1907. 

The  position  of  the  Copts  at  tlie  time  of  the  Persian  and 
Arab  conquests  of  Egypt  is  without  parallel  in  history. 
Two  successive  invasions  swept  over  their  country  with 
but  a  short  interval  between  them.  This  interval  wit- 
nessed the  brilliant  exploits  of  Heraclius,  who  rescued 
the  Byzantine  Empire  when  it  seemed  likely  to  break 
down  utterly  and  finally,  and  gave  it  a  new  lease  of  life, 
though  not  any  approach  to  its  former  splendour.  Now 
the  question  is,  What  was  the  attitude  of  the  Copts  during 
these  three  kaleidoscopic  changes  of  the  map  of  Empire  ? 
They  were  the  persecuted  native  Christians  of  Egypt  who 
had  been  robbed  of  their  ecclesiastical  revenues  and  finest 
churches,  and  who  saw  the  alien  Greek  Melchites,  them- 
selves but  the  shadow  of  a  church,  enjoying  these  ancient 
endowments  and  possessions.  They  could  have  felt  no 
sense  of  loyalty  towards  their  great  oppressor,  the  Byzan- 
tine government.  Nevertheless  it  is  certain  that  they 
did  not  help  or  encourage  the  Persian  invaders.  This  is 
proved  by  the  cruel  treatment  they  received.      There  were  no 

672 


THE    PERSIAN    AND    ARAB    CONQUESTS  573 

less  than  six  hundred  monasteries  in  the  neiglil)ourhood  of 
Alexandria.^  These  monasteries  were  walled  and  fortified, 
and  the  inmates  endeavoured  to  hold  out  against  the 
Persians.  They  were  all  besieged,  captured,  and  destroyed  ; 
and  the  monks  were  put  to  the  sword,  with  great  slaughter. 
The  same  cruel  warfare  was  carried  up  the  Nile  as  far  as 
Syene,  and  many  monks  were  slain  all  along  the  line  of 
conquest.  The  Persian  King  Chosroes  allowed  Andronicus, 
the  Coptic  patriarch,  to  remain  in  Alexandria  as  he  had 
allowed  the  patriarch  Modestus  to  remain  at  Jerusalem. 
No  doubt  he  had  reasons  of  state  for  these  conspicuous 
acts  of  leniency.  It  was  well  to  mark  the  difference 
between  the  national  patriarchs  and  the  Byzantine 
officials. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Copts  were  less  inclined  to 
join  the  enemies  of  the  Byzantine  Empire  just  now  than 
at  any  other  time.  The  Emperor  Phucus  had  made  him- 
self hated  by  all  his  subjects — Greeks  as  well  as  Egyptians 
and  Syrians.  Accordhigly,  when  Heraclius  led  the  revolt 
against  the  brutal  tyrant,  the  whole  empire  had  been  ready 
to  rally  to  the  standard  of  the  great  general  and  assist 
him  in  a  course  of  amlution  which  promised  to  make  for 
the  common  weal.  After  that  the  Copts  were  not  likely 
to  side  with  the  enemies  of  the  man  whom  they  had  helped 
to  set  on  the  throne.  The  notion  that  they  had  done  so 
is  a  pure  fabrication  of  their  Melchite  caluminators.  Their 
own  grievous  sufferings  from  the  sword  should  have  saved 
them  from  this  false  charge. 

After  Heraclius  had  repelled  the  Persian  invasion,  he 
was  still  regarded  in  a  more  friendly  way  by  the  Copts 
than  had  been  the  case  with  other  Byzantine  emperors  ; 
and  at  first  he  took  some  pains  to  cultivate  pleasant  relations 
with  them.  He  did  not  go  so  far  as  to  refuse  to  appoint 
a  Melchite  patriarch.  That  would  have  been  to  give 
mortal  offence  to  his  Greek  subjects  all  over  the  empire. 

1  "Six  hundred  glorious  monasteries  like  dove-cotes,"  says  the  ancient 
writer  of  the  "History  of  the  Coptic  Patriarchs  of  Alexandria,"  ia 
Patrologia  Orientalis,  tome  i.  fasc.  4,  p.  465. 


574  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

But  he  was  careful  to  select  for  the  office  a  man  whose 
life  and  character  were  in  high  repute  even  among  the 
national  Christians.  This  was  John,  who  came  to  be  sur- 
uamed  "  the  Almoner."  The  immensity  of  his  charities 
is  some  evidence  of  the  wealth  of  the  sinecure  post  that  he 
held  as  nominal  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  and  it  may  help 
to  explain  the  bitterness  felt  by  the  impoverished  national 
Church  that  had  been  robbed  in  order  to  endow  this  alien 
and  generally  useless  office.  The  Church  had  a  large 
share  in  the  enormous  grain  trade  which  passed  between 
Alexandria  and  Constantinople,  and  all  the  profit  of  this 
now  went  into  the  coffers  of  the  Melchite  patriarch.  John 
did  the  best  thing  that  seemed  possible  for  him  under  the 
circumstances.  He  did  not  renounce  the  wealth  which  only 
came  to  him  in  his  official  capacity,  and  of  which  he  regarded 
himself  as  a  trustee ;  but  he  gave  it  away  with  more  than 
princely  generosity.  He  distributed  daily  relief  among 
7,500  poor  people  in  Alexandria.  After  the  sack  of 
Jerusalem  by  the  Persians,  he  sent  to  that  city  of  many 
woes  gifts  of  money,  food,  and  clothing,  with  a  modest 
letter  in  which  he  said,  "  Pardon  me  that  I  can  send 
nothing  worthy  the  temples  of  Christ.  Would  that  I 
could  come  myself  and  work  with  my  own  hands  at  the 
Church  of  the  Eesurrection." 

Here  we  may  see  one  good  result  of  the  Persian 
invasion.  It  was  the  indirect  means  of  drawing  the  Syrian 
and  Egyptian  Churches  together  in  bonds  of  real  Christian 
sympathy.  John  the  Almoner  was  treading  in  the  foot- 
steps of  St.  Paul  when  he  sent  aid  to  the  "  brethren  at 
Jerusalem."  In  the  autumn  of  the  year  615,  while  John's 
caravans  were  crossing  the  desert,  the  Jacobite  patriarcli 
of  Antioch,  Athanasius,  paid  a  visit  to  Auastasias,  the  Coptic 
patriarch  of  Alexandria,  meeting  him  at  the  Ennanton 
Monastery  on  the  seacoast  west  of  Alexandria,  where  some 
Syrian  monks  were  already  staying  for  a  time  in  order  to 
revise  the  Syriac  Bible  by  collation  with  the  Greek  text, 
while  others  had  come  as  refugees  from  the  Persian  in- 
vasion.     This  meeting  brought  about  a  result  which  the 


THE    PERSIAN    AND    ARAB    CONQUESTS  575 

Melchite  John's  charities  could  not  effect.  It  issued  in  a 
union  between  the  Syrian  and  the  Coptic  Churches,  both 
of  which  were  of  the  Mouophysitc  creed. 

The   deplorable    surprise    of    the    reign    of    Heraclius 
appeared  only  too  soon.      The  man  who  had  the  genius  to 
save  the  empire  had  not  the  common  sense  to  govern  it. 
Heraclius  was  one  of  the  greatest  generals  the  world  has 
ever  seen  ;  he  proved  to  be  one   of  the  most  incompetent, 
blundering  rulers  who   ever  mismanaged  a  great  empire. 
We  do  not  expect  a  soldier  to  be  a  theologian,  and  Heraclius 
maybe  forgiven  for  leaving  the  subtleties  of  Christology  to  his 
professional  adviser,  Sergius,  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople. 
But  he  cannot   be  excused  for  the  inconsiderate  way  in 
which  he  forced  what  he  intended  to  be  an  olive  branch 
on  to  the  people  whom  he  desired  to  reconcile  with  ortho- 
doxy.     He  did  not  even  consult  Benjamin,  the  patriarch 
of  the  national  Church  of  Egypt  at  the  time.      Cyrus,  his 
nominee  for  the   Melchite  patriarchate  of  Alexandria  (in 
the  year   630),  was  the  very   worst  man  to  select  as  a 
conciliator.      Cyrus    took    his   appointment   as   an   excuse 
for  forcing  his  alien  Melchite  authority   on   the  national 
Church  of  Egypt.     His  cruel  policy  was  anticipated  from 
the  first.     Benjamin  the  Coptic  patriarch  fled  into  hiding 
directly   Cyrus   landed   (a.d.    631).     He  knew   what  this 
mission  meant.      The   Coptic  monks  were  now    worse  off 
than  the  British  monks  of  Bangor,  when  Augustine,  less 
than  thirty  years  before  this  very  time,  had  approached 
with  orders  to  compel  them  to  submit  to  Eome.     They 
fled    in    all    directions.      So   did    many    of    the  clergy   of 
the  national  Church.      All  were  seized  with  terror.     And 
their    fears    were    justified.       Those    who    resisted    Cyrus 
were    severely    dealt    with — imprisoned,    tortured,    killed. 
Many,  however,  submitted,  even  among  the  bishops.     There 
are  few  more  pitiable  passages  in  the  history  of  the  Church 
than  this.      Here  we  have  a  brief  interlude  between  one 
non-Christian  invasion  and  another — between  the    pagan 
Persian   and    the    Mohammedan   Arab   invasion.      During 
this  short  interval  a  Christian  power  is  ruling  in  Egypt. 


576  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Yet  it  proves  to  be  a  time  of  misery  for  the  national 
Church.  The  dominant  party  of  Christians  spend  it  in 
brutally  persecuting  their  fellow-Christians. 

Cyrus's  violent  measures  went  on  for  ten  years.  After 
seven  or  eight  years  of  this  persecution,  Heraclius  made 
his  last  attempt  at  securing  the  peace  of  the  Church  by 
the  issue  of  the  Ecthesis}  advocating  the  newly  invented 
Monothelete  idea.  It  is  probable  that  outside  Alexandria 
the  monks  never  heard  of  the  existence  of  this  document. 
No  extant  Coptic  writing  betrays  any  knowledge  of  it.  To 
the  Copts  their  old  friend  Heraclius  appeared  to  have  been 
changed  into  a  persecutor,  trying  to  force  them  back  to  the 
hated  Chalcedonian  heresy.  This  was  a  double  mistake. 
The  Ecthesis  was  a  departure  from  Chalcedon,  and  as  such 
was  destined  ultimately  to  be  anathematised  by  an  oecu- 
menical council,  and  the  emj)eror  was  no  persecutor,  but 
a  peacemaker — in  intention.  Meanwhile,  from  the  first 
Cyrus  was  exceeding  his  master's  orders  and  directly  con- 
tradicting the  spirit  of  them.  In  being  vested  with 
supreme  authority  over  Egypt  he  was  able  to  oppress  the 
Copts,  who  do  not  seem  to  have  dreamed  of  going  behind 
him  to  appeal  to  Heraclius,  as  though  they  had  had  any 
doubt  of  his  approval  of  Cyrus.  It  must  be  admitted  that 
although  his  original  intention  had  been  pacific,  Heraclius, 
like  Constantino  three  centuries  earlier,  was  driven  by  force 
of  circumstances  into  at  least  an  acquiescence  in  persecu- 
tion. This  is  the  inevitable  destiny  of  the  autocrat  who 
desires  to  force  comprehension  by  the  mutual  reconciliation 
of  all  differences  on  his  reluctant  subjects.  Heraclius 
must  have  known  of  Cyrus's  persecution.  Unless  he  was 
too  weak  to  interfere,  he  must  have  acquiesced  in  it.  No 
doubt  in  the  latter  part  of  the  ten  cruel  years  he  was 
bitterly  disappointed  with  his  pet  device  for  settling  ecclesi- 
astical differences.  His  Ecthesis  was  a  last  attempt  at 
conciliation,  and,  in  spite  of  some  temporary  success,  in 
the  end  it  proved  to  be  a  failure,  partly  because  it  was 
entrusted  to  the  wrong  hands. 

1  See  p.  129. 


THE    PERSIAN    AND    ARAB    CONQUESTS  577 

The  sequel  to  Heraclius's  magnificent  feat  in  hurling 
back  the  Persians  from  Egypt  and  Syria  and  re-establishing 
the  crumbling  power  of  the  Byzantine  Empire  is  one 
of  the  greatest  disappointments  in  history.  For  the 
moment  it  looked  as  though  the  glorious  days  of  Con- 
stantine  or  Theodosius  were  returning.  Then  rose  the 
thunder-cloud  from  the  Arabian  desert,  and  the  hosts  of 
Islam  swept  over  province  after  province,  till  at  length, 
after  centuries  of  Titanic  wrestling,  the  remnant  of  the 
Eoman  Empire  in  the  East  was  finally  subdued,  and  the 
Crescent  gleamed  on  the  central  dome  of  St.  Sophia,  there 
to  remain  till  the  present  day. 

Now  we  have  to  see  the  relation  of  this  triumphant 
march  of  Islam  in  its  early  days  to  the  Copts  and  their 
Church.  Mohammed  never  entered  Egypt.  The  prophet 
died  in  the  year  632.  It  was  seven  years  later  that 
the  Moslems  invaded  Egypt.  Omar  was  then  caliph.  A 
letter  he  had  despatched  to  Amr',  who  was  on  the  way  to 
Egypt,  recalling  the  general  to  Medina,  had  reached  its 
destination,  but  Amr'  did  not  open  it,  and  marched  on  in 
spite  of  what  he  suspected  to  be  its  orders.  His  sub- 
sequent victories  condoned  the  act  of  insubordination. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  these  victories  were  won  partly 
by  aid  rendered  in  Egypt  itself.  But  there  is  some  con- 
fusion in  reference  to  the  source  and  manner  of  this 
assistance.  It  has  been  attributed  to  the  Copts.  If  that 
were  correct,  we  could  hardly  regard  them  as  traitors,  since 
they  were  already  the  subjects  of  a  foreign  master  in  the 
Byzantine  emperor,  who  represented  the  alien  Church  that 
had  appropriated  their  ecclesiastical  property.  It  was  but 
a  question  of  a  change  of  masters.  Still,  the  Byzantine 
Empire,  though  viewed  by  the  Copts  as  heretical  in  its 
acceptance  of  the  decrees  of  Chalcedon,  was  a  Christian 
power,  and  the  admission  of  the  Moslem  conqueror  was  an 
encouragement  to  Islam  as  a  rival  religion  which  threatened 
to  stamp  out  the  faith  of  Christ.  The  persecution  of 
Christians  by  their  fellow-Christians  is  never  more  con- 
vincingly futile  as  a  defence  of  the  faith  than  when  it 
37 


578  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

drives  the  victims  into  the  arms  of  the  infidel      But  it 
is   not  proved  against  the  Copts  that  they  rendered  any 
practical    assistance   to   the    Arab    invaders.      They   were 
crushed  and  scattered  by  the  Melchite  persecution  that  had 
followed  the  issue  of  the  Edhesis  and   its  enforcement  by 
Gyrus.      Benjamin  their  patriarch  was  in  exile;  his  flock 
was  in  no  condition  to  seriously  influence  public  affairs. 
The   action   that  was  taken   to  smooth   the   way   for  the 
invader  came  from  another  source,  and  that  a  source  the 
circumstances  of  which  made  it  far  more  treasonable  in 
character.      A  mysterious  personage,  known  to  the  Aral 
writers  as  "  the  Mukaukas,"  described  as  "  the  chief  ruler 
of  Egypt,"  has  been  accused  as  the  chief  traitor  to  Chris- 
tianity at  this  juncture.      Mr.  Stanley  Lane  Poole  suggests 
that  the  mystery  of  his  personality  may  be  explained  en 
the    hypothesis    that    two   distinct    persons    are    involved 
under  the  same  name.      He  accepts  the  view  that  the  title 
Mukaukas,  as  a  form   of   a   Greek   word  meaning  "most 
glorious,"^  appears  to  have  been  used  for  any  Byzantine 
official.     Now,  in  the  year  628,  a  certain  Egyptian  official 
of  the  empire  named  George,  and  bearing  this  title,  sent 
two  slave  girls,  a  white  mule,  and  a  pot  of  Benha  honey  as 
presents  to  Mohammed,  and  one  of  the  slave  girls,  known 
as  "  Mary  the  Copt,"  became  a  concubine  of  the  prophet. 
Twelve  years  later  we  meet  a  Byzantine  official  with  the 
same  name  and  title  as  Mohammed's  friendly  Mukaukas ; 
possibly,  however,  it  is  suggested,  he  is  not  the  same  man, 
but  perhaps  a  son.     This  George  rendered  the  Arabs  some 
assistance  in  taking  Misr.      In  return  he  got  these  terms — 

(1)  A  moderate  poll  tax  for  the  Christians,  consisting  of 
two  dinars  (about  £1,  Is.  Od.)  per  head,  a  land  tax,  and 
the  requirement  of  giving  three  days'  hospitality  to  soldiers. 

(2)  No  peace  with  the  Eomans  till  they  were  all  made 
slaves.  (3)  A  promise  that  when  George  died  he  should  be 
buried  in  the  church  of  St.  John  at  Alexandria. 

If  this  view  were  adopted,  we  could  not  reckon   the 
Mukaukas  to  be  a  very  important  person,  and  the  difficulty 


THE    PERSIAN    AND    ARAB    CONgUE8T8  57'.l 

would  be  to  accoimt  for  so  much  fuss  being  made  about  him 
and  his  treachery.  But  another  theory  is  advocated  by  Mr. 
Rutler,  which,  if  it  is  adopted,  will  throw  a  very  different 
lio-ht  on  the  story.  This  is  that  the  official  with  the 
barbarous  name  in  the  Arab  chronicles  is  no  one  else  than 
the  well-known  Cyrus,  the  Melchite  patriarch  of  Alexandria. 
So  astounding  a  conception  is  enough  to  take  away  our 
breath  when  it  comes  upon  us  for  the  first  time. 
The  reader  must  be  referred  to  Mr.  Butler's  exhaustive 
examination  of  the  whole  case  for  an  adequate  appreciation 
of  the  evidence,  which  is  cumulative.^  The  theory  appears 
to  have  been  originated  by  the  Portuguese  scholar  Pereira. 
It  starts  from  a  statement  of  Severus  of  Ushmunaim,  that 
"  Cyrus  was  appointed  by  Heraclius  after  the  recovery  of 
Egypt  from  the  Persians  to  be  both  patriarch  and  governor 
of  Alexandria?-  This  is  very  significant.  It  points  to  a 
double  office,  and  suggests  the  idea  that  the  man  who  was 
at  the  same  time  at  the  head  both  of  the  civil  and  of  the 
ecclesiastical  establishments  at  Alexandria  could  really 
dominate  Egypt.  We  can  well  understand  the  Arabian 
view  of  him.  Then  it  is  suggested  that  the  strange  title 
Mukaukas,  that  has  given  rise  to  so  many  conjectures,  is 
derived  from  the  word  kaukasios^  and  indicates  Cyrus,  who 
came  from  Phasis  in  the  Caucasus  as  a  native  of  that 
district.*  It  is  certain  that  Cyrus  entered  into  early 
negotiations  with  the  Mohammedan  General  Amr',  pro- 
mising him  an  annual  tribute  and  the  emperor's  daughter 
Eudocia  for  his  harem  if  he  would  withdraw  his  troops. 
Heraclius  was  in  a  rage  when  he  heard  of  his  official's 
daring   proposal,  and    summoned   him    to    Constantinople, 

1  The  Arab  Conquest  of  Egypt,  Appendix  o. 

2  See  also  Patrologia  Orientalis,  tome i.  fasc.  4,  "Hist,  of  Pat."  :  "  Whf  n 
Heraclius  obtained  possession  of  the  land,  be  appointed  governors  in  every 
place,  and  he  sent  a  governor  to  the  land  of  Egypt  named  Cyrus,  to  be  prefpct 
and  patriarch  at  the  same  time  "  (p.  489). 

*  KavKo/xios. 

*  Other  suggested  derivations  are  from  KaiiKov,  a  supposed  copper  coin,  and 
KavKlov,  a  little  bowl ;  or  perhaps  the  term  is  a  dark  allusion  to  vicious 
practices. 


580  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

where  we  should  have  expected  his  immediate  execution. 
But  the  terror  of  the  Arabian  invasion  was  so  great  that 
the  emperor  sent  Cyrus  back  to  arrange  terms.  When 
the  Mukaukas  was  at  Babylon,  the  ancient  Coptic  capital, 
he  had  carried  on  secret  negotiations  for  surrender.  But 
his  policy  had  then  been  frustrated.  Alexandria,  open  to 
the  sea  and  strongly  fortified  by  land,  should  have  stood 
a  long  siege.  It  was  surrendered  without  a  blow.^  This 
apparently  needless  action  of  the  defenders  is  attributed 
to  the  treachery  of  the  Mukaukas.  It  may  have  been 
owing  to  a  wise  policy  for  the  protection  of  the  city,  its 
treasures,  and  its  citizens.  Subsequently  Alexandria  was 
recovered  by  the  Byzantine ;  and  after  that  the  Arabs 
took  it  by  assault.  It  is  difficult  to  see  what  Cyrus  had 
to  gain  by  treachery.  But  there  is  no  doubt  that  he 
negotiated  terms  of  surrender  with  the  Arabs.  The  fact  is 
confirmed  by  John  of  Nikiou,  who  states,  however,  that 
Cyrus  was  not  alone  in  desiring  peace,  the  inhabitants 
generally  also  wishing  for  it.^  On  the  other  hand,  he 
states  that  Amr'  fought  for  twelve  years  against  the  Chris- 
tians of  North  Egypt  before  he  succeeded  in  conquering 
that  province — the  very  district  where  Cyrus  had  most 
influence.^  When  Alexandria  was  taken  the  stern  Amr' 
forbade  pillage. 

The  famous  story  of  the  destruction  of  the  library  is 
now  discredited.  According  to  the  statement  of  Abu- 
1-Farag,  Amr'  consulted  Omar  as  to  what  he  should 
do  with  the  books,  and  the  caliph  replied,  "  If  these 
writings  of  the  Greeks  agree  with  the  book  of  God, 
they  are  useless  and  need  not  be  preserved :  if  they 
disagree,  they  are  pernicious  and  ought  to  be  de- 
stroyed." So,  we  are  told,  they  were  distributed  among 
the  4,000  baths  of  the  city,  and  even  then  it  took  six 
months  to  burn  them  all.  Gibbon  follows  Eenaudot  in 
throwing  doubt  on  this  picturesque  story,  and  later  critics 
have  confirmed  their  scepticism.       It  is  not  to  be  met  with 

^  John  of  Nikiou,  Chronicle,  cxvii  *  Ibid.  cxx. 

*  Ibid.  cxv. 


THE    PERSIAN    AND    ARAB    CONQUESTS  581 

till  the  thirteenth  century,  six  hundred  years  later. '^  Besides, 
it  is  in  itself  unlikely.  It  is  very  doubtful  whether  there 
was  a  library  of  any  considerable  size  in  Alexandria  at 
the  time.  Ptolemy's  famous  library  appears  to  have  been 
destroyed  by  Ca^^sar.  A  few  years  later  the  library  of  the 
kings  of  Pergamum  was  lodged  at  the  Serapeum  ;  but  when 
the  Serapeum  was  destroyed  by  the  mob  in  the  fourth 
century,  this  library  must  have  been  burnt  or  scattered. 
Then  John  Philoponus,  who,  according  to  the  late  Arab 
story,  had  asked  Amr'  for  the  books,  could  not  have  been 
Kving  in  the  year  642,  because  he  is  known  to  have  bfeen 
writing  more  than  a  century  before  this  date.  Moreover, 
the  Arabs  did  not  enter  Alexandria  for  eleven  months  after 
the  city  had  capitulated,  and  during  all  that  time  the 
inhabitants  were  free  to  carry  off  their  treasures.  When 
the  entry  was  made,  Amr'  prohibited  destruction  of  pro- 
perty. Lastly,  there  is  the  inherent  improbability — as  Mr. 
Butler  points  out — that  books,  many  of  them  of  parch- 
ment, would  be  used  for  lighting  4,000  bath  fires.  It 
would  have  paid  the  bathmen  better  to  have  sold  them  to 
scholars,  many  of  whom  would  have  come  forward  as  eager 
purchasers.  Putting  all  these  facts  together — the  destruc- 
tion of  Ptolemy's  library  by  the  Eomans  in  the  first  century 
B.C. ;  the  destruction  of  the  Serapeum,  which  contained  the 
library  from  Pergamum  in  the  third  century  a.d.  ;  the  evident 
impossibility  of  that  part  of  the  story  that  introduces  the 
name  of  Philoponus ;  the  ample  opportunity  for  saving  the 
books  given  to  the  Alexandrians ;  Amr's  rigorous  pro- 
hibition of  deeds  of  violence ;  and  the  general  impro- 
bability of  the  whole  narrative — we  have  ample  reasons 
for  rejecting  the  tradition  as  not  tnie. 

After  the  Arab  conquest  of  Egypt,  the  centre  of  govern- 
ment was  removed  from  Alexandria  to  Fustat  ("  fehe  tent "), 
near  what  is  now  known  as  "  Old  Cairo."  This  place  was 
more  easily  reached  from  Medina  and  at  the  same  time 
out  of  the  Byzantine  influences  of  Alexandria.  Here  the 
government  was  carried  on  for  two  hundred  and  fifty  years. 

»  In  -Abd-el-Latif  and  Abu-1-Fardg. 


i>82  THE    GREEK   AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

As  regards  the  two  parties  of  (Jhristians,  tlie  tables 
were  turned.  The  ortliodox,  bein;^-  the  party  of  the 
Byzantine  Empire,  were  in  chsfavoiir,  and  Uiey  were  robbed 
of  their  swollen  possessions,  some  part  oi  which  reverted  to 
its  rightful  owners,  the  Copts.  At  first  these  people  were 
leniently  treated.  Amr'  received  a  deputation  of  monks 
l»ecro-ing  for  a  charter  of  rights  and  the  restoration  of  their 
patriarch  Benjamin  after  an  exile  of  thirteen  years.^  In 
reply  he  graciously  granted  the'  charter  and  invited  the 
patriarch  to  return.  His  decree  ran  as  follows  :  "  Let  every 
place,  wherein  Benjamin  the  patriarch  of  the  Coptic 
Christians  may  be,  possess  full  security,  peace  and  trust 
from  God :  let  him  come  with  safety  and  fearlessness,  and 
freely  administer  the  affairs  of  his  Church  and  people."  ^  A 
little  later  the  Copts  were  allowed  to  build  a  church 
behind  the  bridge  at  Fustat.  Altogether  the  national 
Church  in  Egypt  was  at  first  much  freer  and  happier  under 
the  rule  of  the  unbeliever  than  it  had  been  under  that  of 
the  orthodox  emperor.  Benjamin  was  now  able  to  conduct 
a  thorough  visitation  of  his  churches  unmolested.  On  the 
other  hand,  Amr'  would  allow  no  retaliation  on  the  Melch- 
ites.  The  two  Churches  were  to  live  together  side  by 
side.  For  the  time  being  there  was  peace  in  Egypt.  This 
is  one  of  the  few  interludes  between  the  many  severe  per- 
secutions and  the  long  weary  ages  of  ill-treatment  to  which 
the  Christian  inhabitants  have  been  subject. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  only  by  comparison  with  the  more 
harsh  government  of  later  times  that  we  can  regard  this 
early  Arab  period  as  pacific  and  lenient.  In  England  or 
America  we  should  think  the  tyranny  of  Islam  even  at  its 
best  simply  intolerable.      In  accordance  with  the  universal 

^  John  of  Nikiou,  cxxi. 

^  Seveni8  in  Renaudot,  pp.  163,  164.  In  the  "  Hist,  of  the  Patriarchs  "  the 
decree  is  given  as  follows  :  "Amr'  wrote  to  the  provinces  of  Egypt — '  There 
is  protection  and  security  for  the  place  where  Benjamin  the  patriarch  of  the 
Coptic  Christians  is,  and  peace  from  the  governor.  Therefore  let  him  come 
forth  secure  and  tranquil,  and  administer  the  affairs  of  his  Church  and  the 
government  of  his  nation,'  "  Patrologia  Orientalis,  tome  i.  fasc.  4,  pp.  495, 
496. 


THE    PERSIAN    AND    ARAB    CONQUESTS  583 

rule — the  choice  being  Islam,  tribute,  or  the  sword — the 
Christians  were  heavily  taxed,  while  the  Mohammedans  paid 
no  taxes.  Thus  they,  together  with  the  Jews,  bore  all 
the  financial  burden  of  the  State,  paid  the  expenses  of  the 
government  and  the  army,  and  supported  the  luxuries  of  the 
harems.  Over  and  above  this,  their  lives  were  spared  and 
their  freedom  of  worship  was  allowed  only  on  the  following 
conditions : — 

1.  The  Koran  must  not  be  reviled  nor  copies  of  it  burnt. 

2.  The  Prophet  must  not  be  spoken  of  disrespectfully. 

3.  Islam  nnist  not  be  condemned  or  reviled. 

4.  No  Christian  may  marry  a  Mohammedan  woman. 

5.  No  attempt  may  be  made  to  convert  or  injure  a 
Mohammedan. 

6.  The  enemies  of  Islam  are  not  to  be  assisted. 

To  these  general  regulations  there  were  added  certain 
hiuni Hating  restrictions,  as  that  houses  of  the  Christians 
must  not  overtop  houses  of  Mohammedans ;  the  ringing  of 
church  bells  must  not  be  forced  on  the  ears  of  Moham- 
medans ;  crosses  must  not  be  displayed  in  public ;  Christians 
must  not  ride  on  thoroughbred  horses ;  certain  burial 
ordinances  must  be  observed,  etc. 

Gradually  the  Christians  were  made  to  feel  that,  though 
within  the  limits  imposed  upon  them  they  could  enjoy  a 
considerable  measure  of  personal  liberty,  they  were  in  a  state 
of  social  bondage.  The  extraordinary  democratic  nature  of 
Islam  gave  to  Egyptian  converts  equal  privileges  with  the 
invaders  from  Arabia,  except  in  some  military  matters. 
Accordingly,  it  was  not  like  the  case  of  the  invasion  of 
England  by  William  the  Conqueror,  after  which  the 
Normans  as  conquerors  lorded  it  over  the  defeated  English. 
In  Egypt  the  native  people  could  share  the  privileges  of 
the  victorious  Arabs  if  they  would  adopt  the  religion  of 
their  masters. 

Viewed  from  a  distance  and  in  the  abstract,  this  policy 
may  appear  to  be  large-minded,  noble,  generous.  Eeligion 
is  exalted  above  race,  and  the  victor  is  willing  to  share 
the  spoils  of  war  with  the  vanquished,  on  conditions  that 


584  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

do  not  make  for  his  own  material  advantage.  Thus,  though 
a  religion  of  the  sword,  Islam  maintains  its  character 
as  essentially,  bj  its  creed  and  constitution,  a  missionary 
religion.  On  the  other  hand,  this  very  characteristic  of  the 
Mohammedan  government  added  to  its  pressure  of  tyranny 
on  those  people  who  adhered  to  another  faith.  It  was  all 
the  worse  for  the  Christian  Copt  to  see  his  fellow-Egyptian 
passing  over  to  the  rival  faith  and  so  increasing  the  forces 
of  the  oppressor.  For  an  oppressor  the  Mussulman  ruler 
must  be,  as  regards  the  Christians,  even  when  his  methods 
are  the  mildest.  Bribery  was  resorted  to  as  an  additional 
means  of  detaching  the  weak  from  the  Church  and  winning 
them  to  Islam.  If  these  things  were  done  in  the  green 
tree,  what  was  to  be  expected  in  the  dry?  Although 
the  Arab  rule  in  Egypt  began  so  moderately  that  the 
Copts  were  ready  to  rejoice  in  it  for  the  relief  it 
afforded  from  the  Melchite  tyranny,  they  were  soon  to  have 
reasons  for  repenting  of  the  welcome  they  had  given  it. 
It  was  not  long  before  their  disadvantages  were  increased, 
and  from  time  to  time  in  the  subsequent  centuries  they 
were  harassed  with  savage  outbreaks  of  persecution.  The 
Christians  never  enjoy  full  liberty  under  Islam ;  they  are 
always  treated  as  inferiors,  if  not  as  outlaws ;  and  they  are 
often  subject  to  great  cruelty  without  hope  of  redress. 
Egypt  has  proved  to  be  no  exception  to  this  melancholy 
generalisation. 


CHAPTER    III 

THE  COPTS  UNDER  THE  CALIPHATE 

(a)  The  Arabian  authors  ;  John  of  Nikiou,   Chronicle ;  Makrizi ; 

Eutj'chius  ;  Amelineau,  Etude  sur  le  Christianisme  au  Eyypte 
au  Septihne  SiMe  (containing  translation  of  Life  of  Abbot 
Pisentius) ;  Renaudot,  Eistoria  Patriarcharum  Alexandrin- 
orum  ;  Le  Quien,  Oriens  Christianus,  1741  ;  Abu  Salik,  TTie 
Churches  and  Monasteries  of  Eyypt  (died  a.d.  900  ;  Eng.  trans. 
1895). 

(b)  Gibbon,  chap.  li. ;  Neale,  Patriarchate  of  Alexandria,  voL  ii. ; 

Mrs.  Butcher,  History  of  the  Church  in  Egijpt,  1897  ;  Lane 
Poole,  Eist.  of  Egypt  in  the  Middle  Ages,  1907. 

The  Coptic  monks  of  this  period,  first  harried  by  the 
Persians,  next  persecuted  by  the  Melchites,  and  then 
opprepsed  by  the  Arabs,  were  now  at  their  highest  stage 
of  culture.  The  mission  of  scholars  from  Syria  to  an 
Egyptian  monastery  for  the  revision  of  their  own  Scriptures 
is  one  sign  of  this  fact.  It  seems  clear  that  the  Melchites 
studied  the  Greek  classics  as  weU  as  the  Church  Fathers. 
This  is  shown  by  classical  allusions  in  their  writings.  How 
far  these  studies  were  shared  by  the  Copts,  however,  is  not 
quite  evident.  But  under  the  liberal  rule  of  John  the 
Almoner  there  was  more  friendly  communication  between 
the  two  churches  than  at  any  other  time  either  before  or 
after.  Sophronius,  the  orthodox  opponent  of  the  Ecthesis, 
came  from  Alexandria,  and  he  composed  an  elegy  on  the 
Holy  Places  in  Anacreontic  verse, — but  of  course  he  was  a 
Melchite.  A  friend  of  John  the  Almoner  and  Sophronius, 
John  Moschus,  gives  an  account  of  his  visits  to  Egyptian 
monasteries  in  a  famous  book,  entitled  Spiritual  Pastures} 

*  Aeifiibv  irwevnariKis, 
686 


586  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

These  two  men  afford  considerable  information  regarding  the 
manners  and  customs  of  the  churches  and  monasteries  of 
Egypt  in  their  day,  and  show  how  full  of  intellectual  life 
they  were.  For  instance,  in  his  account  of  a  monk  whom 
lie  calls  "  Cosmas  the  Student,"  John  Moschus  says,  "  We 
shall  write  nothing  from  hearsay — only  what  we  have  seen 
with  our  own  eyes.  He  was  a  simple  -  minded  man, 
abstemious  and  clean  living :  he  was  easy  tempered  and 
sociable,  given  to  hospitality,  a  friend  of  the  poor.  He 
rendered  us  the  very  greatest  service,  not  only  by  his  specu- 
lation and  his  teaching,  but  because  he  possessed  the  finest 
private  library  in  Alexandria,  and  freely  lent  his  books  to  all 
readers.  He  was  very  poor,  and  the  whole  of  his  house,  which 
was  full  of  books,  contained  no  furniture  but  a  bed  and  a 
table.  His  library  was  open  to  all  comers.  Every  reader 
could  ask  for  the  book  lie  wanted  and  there  read  it.  Day 
by  day  I  visited  Cosmas,  and  it  is  a  mere  fact  that  I  never 
once  entered  his  house  without  finding  him  engaged  either 
in  reading  or  in  writing  against  the  Jews.  He  was  very 
reluctant  to  leave  his  library,  so  that  he  often  sent  me  out 
to  argue  with  some  of  the  Jews  from  the  manuscript  he 
had  written."  Cosmos  told  John  that  he  had  lived  there 
for  thirty-three  years.  When  asked  what  he  had  learnt 
during  all  this  long  time  of  study,  he  answered  that  the 
three  principal  things  were  "  not  to  laugh,  not  to  swear, 
and  not  to  lie."  ^ 

The  monks  were  diligent  students  and  copyists  of 
books.  Coptic  illuminated  manuscripts,  some  of  which 
are  dated  as  early  as  this  period,  are  reckoned  as  among 
the  treasures  of  art  on  their  own  account,  and  also  because 
their  decorative  work  set  an  example  for  the  mediaeval 
monks.  The  church  architecture  of  the  Copts  had 
attained  to  real  splendour,  and  was  developing  germs  of  an 
originality  that  was  destined  to  have  a  remarkable  effect 
on  Saracenic  and  Gothic  building.  Instead  of  the  uniform 
classic  capital,  a  new  foliation  now  appeared.  Mosaic 
work  in  brilliant  coloured  glass,  which  we  think  of  as 
^  John  Moschus,  quoted  by  Butler,  Arab  Conquest  of  Egypt,  pp.  99,  100. 


THE    COrTS    UNDER   THE    CALIPHATE  587 

essentially  Byzautiue,  was  also  developed  by  the  Copts. 
About  this  time  also  they  begau  to  produce  the  highly 
wrought  marble  carving  known  as  Opus  Alexandriniim. 
Mr.  hotliiiby  has  recently  pointed  out  the  remarkable 
reseml)lance  between  the  Coptic  textiles  of  the  fifth  and 
sixth  centuries,  in  which  knotted  and  plaited  work  is  used 
freely,  and  old  Saxon  ornamentation.  Not  only  may  Coptic 
vestments  devised  in  this  style  have  found  their  way  to 
Britain,  but  the  flight  of  the  monks,  first  before  the  Persians 
and  later  before  the  Arabs,  may  have  resulted  in  some  of 
them  coming  themselves  as  far  west  Mr.  Lethaby  remarks  : 
"  Such  a  theory  would  account  for  a  sudden  appearance  of 
this  type  over  a  wide  field.  The  fact  that  the  earliest 
examples  of  Arabic  silks  made  in  Egypt  (seventh  and  eighth 
centuries)  are  ornamented  with  bands  of  braided  patterns 
which  are  obviously  a  continuation  of  the  Coptic  designs, 
goes  to  show  how  powerful  the  tradition  was.  The  time  of 
Theodore,  the  eastern  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  (669-690), 
would  be  particularly  favourable  for  the  migration  of  monks 
and  artists  from  the  Orient.  Only  a  few  years  after  the 
death  of  Theodore,  the  Lindisfarne  book  was  written  and 
decorated,  and  about  the  same  time  knot-work  first  appears 
in  Italian  stone  carving."  ^ 

At  the  later  period  when  Saracenic  architecture  began 
to  develop  as  a  new  order  astounding  the  world  with  its 
deUcate  beauty,  the  actual  work  was  primarily  dependent 
on  Greek  and  Coptic  designing  and  handicraft.  Mosques 
were  planned  by  Greek  architects,  and  their  fine  decorative 
work  executed  by  Coptic  craftsmen.  The  Arabs  were 
warriors  and  rulers ;  they  were  not  builders  and  artists. 
Their  natural  home  was  the  desert  tent,  and  when  they 
indulged  in  the  luxury  of  cities  they  were  dependent  on 
the  skill  of  the  conquered  peoples  whom  they  forced  into 
their  service.  At  first  pillars  were  torn  from  Christian 
churches  to  be  used  in  the  construction  of  Moslem  mosques. 

1  The  Origin  of  Knotted  Ornamentation,  "  Burlington  Magazine,"  January 
1907,  with  references  to  Le  Monastere  .  .  .  de  Baouit,  "  M^moires  d'Areli^- 
ologie,"  etc.,  vol.  xii.,  Cairo,  1906. 


588  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

When  the  Mohammedans  began  to  make  the  shafts  of 
pillars,  they  crowned  them  with  stolen  Christian  capitals, 
and  when  they  had  entirely  new  work  done  this  was 
executed  by  men  of  the  Christian  stock,  although  in  many 
cases  these  men  conformed  to  Islam.  All  along  North 
Africa  and  even  in  Spain  the  Arabesque  designs  are 
largely  of  Coptic  and  almost  entirely  of  Christian  origin. 
Being  adopted  by  Mohammedans,  they  are  adapted  to 
the  principles  of  the  Koran.  The  Alhambra  may  have 
leminiscences  of  the  Bedouin  tent  in  its  domestic  arrange- 
ments, but  its  architectural  style  is  a  direct  descendant  and 
development  of  the  Alexandrian. 

Cyrus  died  soon  after  the  Arab  conquest  of  Egypt. 
He  was  nominally  succeeded  by  a  Melchite  patriarch 
named  Peter,  who  found  it  convenient  to  retire  to  Con- 
stantinople, where  he  persuaded  the  Emperor  Constans 
to  substitute  the  Type  for  the  Edhesis}  After  his  death 
there  was  no  Melchite  patriarch  of  Alexandria  for  more 
than  seventy  years  (a.d.  654-727).  Such  priests  of  the 
orthodox  Church  as  still  came  to  minister  to  its  few  Greek 
adherents  in  Egypt  then  obtained  their  ordination  in  Syria. 
Meanwhile  the  national  Church,  which  had  enjoyed  a 
measure  of  favour  under  Amr',  was  not  long  in  discovering 
the  real  significance  of  the  rule  of  Islam.  Benjamin  was 
succeeded  in  the  patriarchate  by  Agatho  (a.d.  659),  who 
had  to  confine  himself  in  his  own  house  for  a  time  to 
escape  from  the  demands  of  a  priest  of  the  orthodox 
communion  named  Theodosius.  This  man  had  succeeded 
in  obtaining  from  the  Caliph  Yezid  a  grant  of  contribu- 
tions from  the  Coptic  patriarchate.  When  Agatho  died, 
Theodosius  boldly  took  possession  of  the  patriarch's 
residence  and  affixed  his  seal  to  all  that  it  contained. 
This  was  going  too  far.  Abdel-Aziz,  the  governor  of 
Egypt,  interfered,  and  the  impudent  priest  was  forced  to 
beat  a  hasty  retreat.  The  new  Coptic  patriarch  was  John 
Semnudseus,  who  took  advantage  of  the  temporary  favour 
of  the  government  to  advance  the  interests  of  the  Copts. 

»  See  p.  129. 


THE    COPTS    UNDER    THE    CALIPHATE  589 

This  was  perhaps  the  most  flourishing  time  of  the 
Coptic  Church.  The  Mohammedan  government  was 
friendly,  the  Melchites  were  unable  to  annoy,  and  the 
mills  and  oil  presses  of  the  patriarchate  were  bringing 
in  good  revenue,  which  the  patriarch  used  to  relieve 
distress  throughout  the  whole  country  during  a  time  of 
famine.  So  John  Semnudseus  was  a  second  Joseph. 
But  he  was  not  permitted  to  end  his  days  in  peace.  John 
attempted  to  act  as  mediator  between  the  Emperor  of 
Ethiopia  and  the  King  of  Nubia,  who  were  at  war.  Abdel- 
Aziz  was  induced  to  treat  this  action  as  a  political  intrigue 
for  the  overthrow  of  the  power  of  Islam,  and  he  condemned 
the  patriarch  to  be  beheaded.  Happily  the  governor 
was  persuaded  to  spare  John's  life,  and  he  contented 
himself  with  ending  the  incident  by  ordering  certain 
sentences  affirming  the  Mussulman  faith  to  be  written  on 
the  church  doors.^ 

Something  more  nearly  approaching  real  persecution 
was  practised  by  the  emir's  eldest  son,  Asabah,  who  was 
influenced  by  an  apostate  Copt  named  Benjamin.  He 
laid  a  capitation  tax  of  a  gold  piece  on  every  monk 
and  a  tax  of  a  thousand  pieces  of  gold  on  every 
bishop,  and  he  forbade  anybody  for  the  future  to  take 
monastic  vows.  The  father  and  the  son  died  near  the 
same  time;  but  this  did  not  mend  matters.  The  Caliph 
Abdel-Melech  appointed  his  son  Abdallah  to  be  governor  of 
Egypt  (a.d.  705).  He  proved  to  be  a  savage  tyrant  after 
the  fashion  of  one  of  the  monsters  of  cruelty  in  the  Arabian 
Nights.  For  instance,  he  would  order  a  guest's  head  to 
be  taken  off  while  sitting  with  him  at  table.  When  the 
patriarch  Alexander  ventured  to  enter  the  palace  to  do 
homage  to  the  new  emir,  Abdallah  flung  him  into  prison 
and  demanded  3,000  pieces  of  gold  as  the  price  of  his 
freedom.  This  governor  of  a  province  of  the  Mussulman 
Empire  was  acting  just  like  a  brigand  from  the  mountains. 
The  patriarch  had  no  means  for  raising  his  ransom  till 
George  his  deacon  obtained  leave  for  his  liberation  to 
1  Neale  calls  this  the  "  First  Persecution  under  Abdel-Aziz.  ' 


590  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

go  round  the  towns  and  villages  collecting  the  money, 
promising  to  bring  him  back  at  the  end  of  two  months. 
From  being  the  distri))utor  of  bounty  to  the  poor  of  the  land 
the  patriarch  of  Egypt  was  now  reduced  to  the  humiliating 
necessity  of  tramping  from  place  to  place  among  his  flock 
in  order  to  save  his  life  and  liberty.  By  this  means  the 
money  was  obtained.  But  that  did  not  satisfy  the  rapacious 
emir.  He  had  churches  despoiled  of  their  treasures,  and 
Christians  who  had  not  registered  in  his  census — which 
was  only  an  expedient  for  extortion — branded  on  their 
forehead  or  hands.  At  last  he  pressed  his  extortions  by 
torture.  This  provoked  a  rising  in  Upper  Egypt,  which 
was  quickly  quelled,  with  the  inevitable  result  that  the 
persecution  became  more  severe. 

On  the  death  of  the  Caliph  Abdel-Melech,  and  the 
succession  of  his  son  Walid,  Abdallah  was  superseded  by 
Korah-ben-Serik  as  Emir  of  Egypt.  For  the  unhappy 
Christians  every  change  was  only  a  change  for  the  worse. 
When  Alexander  presented  himself  before  Korah  to  offer 
the  expected  homage  of  the  patriarch  to  the  governor,  he 
was  met  with  the  same  demand  that  Abdallah  had  made, 
and  showing  he  had  no  means  of  paying,  set  off  to  Upper 
Egypt  to  collect  the  money.  After  two  years'  wandering 
he  was  only  able  to  obtain  a  third  of  the  amount  re- 
quired. The  emir  was  suspicious,  and  believing  a  report 
that  Alexander  had  a  private  mint,  sent  for  it  to  his 
residence,  where,  since  no  trace  of  it  could  be  found,  the 
patriarch  and  his  attendants  were  savagely  scourged.  The 
persecution  was  continued  under  the  next  emir,  Amasa,  with 
much  cruelty.  The  repeated  exactions  of  money,  which 
were  among  its  chief  characteristics,  give  it  a  wretchedly 
sordid  appearance.  The  motive  was  so  evidently  selfish 
greed  rather  than  high  policy  of  state. 

At  length  the  Melchites  ventured  in  electing  a  patriarch 
to  the  post  that  had  been  vacant  so  long,  and  their  choice 
fell  on  a  needle-maker,  Cosmas,  who  could  neither  read  nor 
write,  but  who  justified  their  wisdom  in  appointing  him  by 
bis  able  management  of  a  peculiarly  difficult  position.     He 


THE    COPTS    UNDER   THE    CALIl'HATE  591 

took  a  jouniey  to  Damascus  and  there  had  an  audience  with 
the  caliph,  wlioni  he  succeeded  in  convincing  tliat  he  was 
in  the  true  line  of  the  ancient  patriarchate  of  Alexandria, 
and  so  got  several  of  the  churches  taken  from  the  Copts 
and  given  up  to  him.  It  was  a  most  unhappy  revival  of 
the  old  intrusion  of  the  Greek  Church  in  Egypt,  and 
one  more  trouble  for  the  much  afflicted  native  Church. 
After  this  the  Copts  had  great  difficulty  in  electing  a 
patriarch  for  their  own  communion.  When  they  had  suc- 
ceeded in  coming  to  an  agreement  on  Chail  i.,  the  governor 
loaded  them  with  fresh  money  exactions,  in  order  to  pay 
which  some  sold  their  cattle,  and  some  even  their  children. 
Many  bishops  fled  and  hid  in  the  monasteries. 

In  the  year  748  a  new  governor,  Hassan,  was  appointed, 
and  for  a  time  he  was  friendly  towards  the  Christians.  It 
is  pitiable  to  see  that  one  consequence  was  that  both  parties 
— the  Melchites  and  the  Copts — appealed  to  the  govern- 
ment in  a  dispute  about  the  possession  of  a  church — St. 
Mennas  in  the  Mareotis.  This  appears  to  be  the  first  case 
in  which  two  bodies  of  Christians  have  brought  their 
quarrel  into  a  Mohammedan  court  of  law.  The  emir  gave 
his  decision  in  favour  of  the  national  Church.  The  glint 
of  favour  was  but  transient.  A  little  later  the  emir  threw 
Chail  into  a  dungeon,  together  with  three  hundred  Christians 
of  both  sexes.  The  patriarch  was  only  liberated  in  order  to 
undertake  the  weary  work  of  collecting  money  for  their 
ransom  in  Upper  Egypt. 

The  emir  became  so  tyrannical  that  he  drove  the 
Copts  in  Upper  Egypt  to  another  rebellion.  Both  the 
patriarchs,  Cosmas  the  Melchite  and  Chail  the  Copt,  were 
taken  prisoners ;  the  former  was  let  off  on  payment  of 
a  ransom,  and  the  latter  was  employed  to  use  his  influence 
with  his  flock  in  bringing  them  to  submission.  The  war 
was  complicated  by  the  quarrels  now  going  on  among 
the  Mohammedans,  and  the  Christians  joined  the  faction 
of  the  Abbasidae.  Their  success  brought  immediate  relief 
to  the  Church. 

A   curious   sidelight  is  thrown  on   the   status  of   the 


592  THE   GREEK   AND   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Coptic  Christians  in  the  eighth  century  by  the  Mohammedan 
historian  Makrizi.  Under  the  favour  of  the  new  line  of 
caliphs  and  their  emirs  in  Egypt,  they  now  entered  on  a 
temporary  era  of  prosperity,  which  was  viewed  with  jealousy 
by  their  Mussulman  fellow-subjects.  According  to  Makrizi, 
they  assumed  a  proud  bearing  and  flaunting  airs.  "It 
came  to  this,"  he  says,  "  that  one  of  the  Christian  secretaries 
passed  before  the  Mosque  el  Azher  in  el  Kahira  (Cairo) 
riding  in  boots  with  spurs,  and  white  bands  round  his  head 
after  the  fashion  of  Alexandria,  with  footmen  going  before 
him  to  drive  away  the  people  lest  they  should  throng  him, 
and  behind  him  a  number  of  slaves  in  costly  apparel  on 
prancing  steeds.  A  lot  of  Mussulmans  then  present  ill- 
brooked  this;  so  they  rose  up  against  him,"  etc.^  The 
result  was  a  disturbance  in  which  the  proud  Copt  was 
roughly  handled.  This  passage  is  very  significant.  In  the 
first  place  it  indicates  the  prosperity  of  the  Copts  who  had 
succeeded  in  making  their  way  into  official  positions.  Then, 
as  in  the  present  day,  it  would  seem  that  their  special  aptitude 
for  clerkships  and  secretaryships  gave  them  an  advantage 
over  the  Arabs  in  regard  to  these  offices.  The  pride  of  a 
member  of  a  persecuted  commimity  during  a  short  interval 
of  immunity  may  seem  surprising.  But  such  a  man  as  we 
see  here  is  lifted  out  of  the  common  rut  by  his  official  rank. 
The  reference  to  Alexandria  is  peculiarly  interesting.  Cairo 
was  a  Mohammedan  city  from  its  foundation  ;  but  Alexandria 
was  the  old  Christian  capital.  Alexandrian  manners  would 
seem  to  have  retained  a  flavour  of  the  old  Eoman  imperial 
temper.  But  anything  of  the  kind  was  certainly  out  of 
place  in  Cairo  under  a  Mussulman  emir.  We  are  not 
surprised  to  learn  that  Christians  who  made  any  assumption 
of  self-importance  were  roughly  treated  by  the  Cairene 
mob.  There  were  times  when  it  was  not  safe  for  any 
Christians  to  show  themselves  in  the  streets,  when  they 
were  compelled  to  stay  indoors  for  their  lives.  Makrizi 
goes  on  to  tell  how  after  this  the  Christians  were  forbidden 
to  enter  the  public  service  even  if  they  embraced  Islam, 

1  Malau,  pp.  106  S. 


THE   COPTS    UNDER   THE   CALIPHATE  593 

and  ordered  to  attend  five  prayers  and  the  Friday  assembly 
at  the  mosques  and  other  places  of  gathering  for  prayer.^ 

In  tlic  course  of  the  civil  war  that  broke  out  after  the 
death  of  the  famous  Caliph  Aaron-al-liascliid,  the  Spanish 
Arabs  of  the  house  of  the  Ommiad;e,  which  had  been 
superseded  by  the  Abbasidse,  invaded  Egypt  and  made 
slaves  of  their  prisoners  of  war.  Mark  the  Coptic 
patriarch  offered  to  buy  all  these  slaves,  and  his  offer  was 
gladly  welcomed,  so  that  6,000  prisoners  were  liberated 
in  this  way.^  Alexandria  was  captured,  but  while  the 
besiegers  were  resting  off  their  guard  the  Arabs  rose  and 
commenced  an  indiscriminate  slaughter  of  Jews  and 
Christians  as  well  as  Spanish  troops.  Mark  escaped  to 
the  desert,  where  he  remained  in  hiding  for  five  years. 

Much  of  the  Coptic  history  of  this  period  consists  of 
little  else  than  stories  of  the  successive  patriarchs,  few  of 
whom  seem  to  have  been  men  of  any  power  or  importance. 
The  patriarch  Jacob,  who  was  at  the  head  of  the  Coptic 
Church  early  in  the  ninth  century,  attained  to  some  fame, 
which  induced  his  brother  patriarch  at  Antioch,  Dionysius, 
the  author  of  the  Chronicle  from  the  beginninff  of  the  World 
to  his  own  times,  to  pay  him  a  visit.  Yucab,  who  became 
Coptic  patriarch  in  or  near  the  year  837,^  consecrated 
bishops  for  the  more  remote  parts  of  his  diocese,  especially 
by  the  borders  of  the  Eed  Sea.  He  also  cultivated  an 
intimate  friendship  with  the  Melchite  patriarch  Sophronius. 
But  though  for  the  time  being  this  may  have  softened  the 
acerbity  of  sectarian  animosity  between  the  two  parties,  it 
did  not  lead  to  any  steps  towards  bringing  them  together. 
Yucab  died  in  the  year  850,  and  was  succeeded  by  Chail, 
the  second  Coptic  patriarch  of  that  name.  Almost 
immediately  after  this  the  peace  which  the  Church  had 
enjoyed,  broken  only  by  temporary  outbreaks,  for  nearly 

1  Malan,  p.  108. 

'  Neale,  who  always  writes  as  a  strong  partisan  of  the  Melcliites,  remarks 
on  this  noble  deed,  "Heresy  inobably  thus  reaped  a,  harvest  of  converts," 
Patriarchate  of  Alexandria,  vol.  ii.  p.  139. 

2  According  to  Makrizi,  in  842, 

38 


594  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

fifty  years,  came  to  an  end,  and  the  old  trouble  caused  by 
the  rapacity  of  the  emirs  was  vexing  it  again.  The 
patriarch  even  luid  to  sell  the  sacred  vessels  of  his  church 
to  meet  the  demands  of  the  civil  governor.  The  Caliph 
Mutawekkil  now  lays  down  many  vexatious  regulations  for 
the  Christians.  They  are  to  wear  honey-coloured  cloth,  or 
a  distinguishing  patch  on  their  garments ;  the  men  are  to 
have  a  girdle  after  the  style  of  women ;  they  are  to  put 
up  a  wooden  image  of  a  devil,  an  ape,  or  a  dog  over  their 
doors ;  no  crosses  may  be  shown ;  neither  may  they  have 
processions  through  the  streets  with  lights ;  they  may  not 
ride  on  horses ;  nothing  must  be  set  up  on  their  graves  to 
mark  them.  Still  annoying  and  insulting  as  all  this  is,  it 
cannot  be  compared  with  the  violent  persecutions  of  earlier 
and  of  later  periods.  After  the  year  856  most  of  the 
emirs  were  Turks,  since  men  of  this  race  were  now  coming 
more  and  more  to  the  front  in  the  army  and  government 
of  the  caliphate,  while  the  old  vigour  of  the  desert  warriors 
was  deserting  the  Arab  families  amid  the  luxury  and 
sensuality  of  their  life  in  cities.  The  Turkish  emirs  of 
Egypt  were  able  men,  and  some  of  them  mild  and  merciful 
rulers.  During  the  patriarchate  of  Chenouda,  a  man  of  great 
influence  in  the  Coptic  Church,  the  governor  Abdallah 
doubled  or  trebled  the  taxation  of  the  Christians.  His 
difficulty  was  with  the  monks,  who  owned  no  property, 
and  he  put  a  tax  on  their  fruit  and  vegetables.  Chenouda 
retired  into  seclusion  for  a  time,  but  subsequently  he  came 
out  and  presented  himself  before  the  emir,  who  then  came 
to  terms  with  him.  It  was  the  same  perpetual  question  of 
how  much  money  could  be  squeezed  out  of  the  Christians 
which  had  so  long  disgraced  the  story  of  the  emirs  in 
Egypt.  In  this  agreement  between  Abdallah  and  Chenouda 
it  was  settled  that  the  Church  of  Alexandria  should  pay 
an  annual  tribute  of  2,000  and  the  monasteries  of  2,300 
pieces  of  gold. 

The  greatest  of  the  Turkish  emirs  was  Ibn  Tulun,  who 
lias  left  his  name  on  a  famous  mosque  at  Cairo.  This 
man   was   originally   a    Turkish    slave.       He   married   the 


THE    COPTS    UNDER   THE    CALIPHATE  595 

daughter  of  the  Emir  Bargug,  who  gave  him  a  free  hand, 
so  that  at  the  age  of  thirty-three  he  became  really  the 
governor  of  Egypt  (a.d.  868).  Then  he  began  to  live 
in  kingly  state.  Tuliin  was  no  friend  to  the  Christians. 
He  ruthlessly  levelled  the  Christian  graves  for  a  new 
town  between  Fustat  and  the  Mokattam  hills.  In  the 
year  878  he  renounced  allegiance  to  the  caliph,  took 
Damascus,  captured  and  sacked  Antioch.  This  was  the 
first  mutiny  in  Egypt  since  the  Arab  conquest.  Although 
Tulun  was  a  fierce  and  ruthless  destroyer  when  on  the 
warpath,  he  revived  the  power  of  Egypt  in  the  East,  and 
beautified  Cairo  with  some  of  the  finest  work  of  Saracenic 
architecture.  He  died  of  the  fatigues  of  his  tremendous 
life  when  on  his  travels,  in  the  year  884,  before  he  was 
fifty  years  of  age. 

These  were  dark  times  for  the  Copts.  The  Melchite 
party  had  come  into  temporary  favour  and  the  national 
Church  was  under  a  cloud,  when  a  deacon,  maintaining  that 
he  had  been  wrongly  treated  by  Chenouda,  appealed  to  the 
governor  Ahmed,  who  thereupon  summoned  all  the  Coptic 
bishops  to  his  presence.  Chenouda  had  gone  into  hiding, 
but  he  was  discovered  and  dragged  out.  The  bishops  were 
stripped  of  their  episcopal  robes,  and,  clad  as  simple 
monks,  led  through  the  streets  on  the  backs  of  asses 
without  saddles  amidst  the  jeers  of  the  mob.  The 
patriarch  was  flung  into  a  dungeon  and  kept  there  for 
thirty  days,  in  the  hope  that  he  would  pay  a  handsome 
ransom,  which,  however,  was  not  forthcoming.  This 
incident  ended  strangely.  The  accusing  deacon  professed 
penitence,  and  Chenouda  granted  him  absolution  ;  but  the 
penitent  soon  proved  his  insincerity  by  bringing  various 
false  accusations  against  Christians.  When  his  villainy 
was  discovered  the  emir  had  him  scourged  almost  to  death. 
Chenouda  died  in  or  about  the  year  881,  after  a  patri- 
archate full  of  trouble  and  vexation.  Great  as  was  his 
influence  among  his  own  people,  he  seems  to  have  been  a 
weak,  timorous  man,  unsuited  to  the  rough  times  in  which 
his  lot  was  cast.      But  Egypt  was  not  the  soil  to  bring 


596  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

forth  a  Hildebrand  or  a  Thomas  a  Becket,  and  even  if  one 
of  those  heroes  of  ecclesiasticism  had  appeared  under  the 
rule  of  Islam,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  he  could  have 
developed  his  powers. 

Chenouda's  successor,  Chail  ill.,  had  as  troublesome  a 
time  as  that  of  the  unhappy  patriarch  whom  he  was  called 
to  follow.  His  misfortunes  sprang  from  what  occurred 
during  his  visit  to  Xois,  in  the  diocese  of  Saca,  for  the 
consecration  of  a  new  church.  The  service  was  unaccount- 
ably delayed  by  the  absence  of  the  bishop,  till  it 
was  discovered  that  he  was  entertaining  his  friends  at 
a  preliminary  banquet  which  was  unduly  protracted. 
On  learning  this,  the  indignant  patriarch  commenced  the 
service.  When  the  bishop  came  in  and  saw  what  was 
happening  he  flew  into  a  rage,  seized  the  bread  of  the 
Eucharist  and  flung  it  on  the  ground.  The  next  day 
Chail  and  the  other  assembled  bishops  met  and  excom- 
municated the  offender.  This  man  then  went  to  the 
Emir  Tulun,  and  informed  him  that  the  patriarch  had 
enough  wealth  to  pay  for  his  projected  military  expedition. 
Chail  was  summoned,  and  ordered  to  give  up  everything 
belonging  to  the  Christian  worship  except  the  vestments. 
Eefusing  to  do  this,  he  was  sent  to  prison  and  kept 
there  for  a  twelvemonth.  Then  he  was  let  out  on 
the  condition  that  he  should  procure  20,000  pieces  of 
gold,  one-half  in  a  month,  the  rest  in  four  months.  Chail 
took  refuge  in  a  Melchite  church,  and  apparently  did 
nothing  towards  accomplishing  his  really  impossible  task, 
till  it  was  pointed  out  to  him  that  there  were  ten  vacant 
bishoprics,  by  charging  fees  for  the  appointment  to  which 
he  might  raise  money.  By  this  and  other  disgraceful 
means  he  got  a  considerable  amount,  but  not  nearly  half 
what  was  required.  As  a  last  resource  he  went  to  Alexandria 
and  bargained  with  the  clergy  for  their  church  ornaments 
in  return  for  a  pledge  to  pay  the  Alexandrian  Church  a 
thousand  pieces  of  gold  every  year  in  perpetuity.  Even 
then  he  had  only  half  the  huge  sum  demanded  of  him  by 
the  emir,  who,  however,  died   before  taking   measures  to 


THE    COPTS    UNDER    THE    CALIPHATE  597 

force  the  wretched  patriarcli  to  make  still  further  efforts 
at  obtaining  the  rest  of  the  money. 

The  practice  of  taking  money  for  appointments  to 
bishoprics  invented  by  Chail  ill.  was  often  adopted  by 
subsequent  patriarchs.  The  Alexandrian  tribute  and  the 
exactions  of  the  government  were  the  excuses  for  a  custom 
that  the  Church  has  always  condemned  as  simoniacal. 
The  money  was  not  taken  for  the  personal  advantage  of 
the  vendors.  It  was  requisitioned  as  an  absolute  necessity 
for  the  payment  of  obligatory  dues.  IStill,  the  practice 
was  owned  to  be  a  scandalous  evil,  and  the  better 
patriarchs  endeavoured  to  break  it  off.  Chail  himself 
ended  his  days  as  a  penitent  mourning  for  his  double 
offence  of  violating  the  canons  and  alienating  the  property 
of  the  Church. 

The  condition  of  Egypt  under  the  Mohammedan  rule 
was  now  going  from  bad  to  worse.  The  caliphs  endeavoured 
to  retain  their  power  over  it  by  a  frequent  change  of  emirs, 
so  that  no  one  governor  should  have  time  to  establish 
himself  in  independence.  Emirs  would  bribe  the  caliphs 
for  appointment  and  reappointment,  and,  of  course,  wring 
the  money  for  this  backshish  from  their  miserable  subjects, 
the  Christians  always  being  the  greatest  sufferers.  But,  on 
the  occasion  of  one  of  these  emirs  imposing  a  new  tribute 
on  bishops  and  monks,  a  deputation  of  Christians  went  to 
Bagdad  to  represent  to  the  caliph  the  intolerable  condition 
of  affairs,  and  succeeded  in  obtaining  an  order  that  nothing 
beyond  the  usual  tax  should  be  exacted  from  them.  While 
they  were  being  bled  the  Christians  were  also  being  starved. 
One  emir  ordered  that  neither  Christians  nor  Jews  should 
be  employed  in  any  other  way  than  as  physicians  and 
tradesmen. 

Eutychius,  commonly  known  as  Said,  the  chronicler  of 
this  period  of  Coptic  history,  was  a  Melchite  patriarch  early 
in  the  ninth  century.  He  was  a  man  of  some  culture, 
who  had  studied  and  practised  medicine  and  written  a 
treatise  on  that  subject.  He  was  also  the  author  of  a 
disputation    between    a    Christian    and   a    heretic,  and   a 


598  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

work  on  the  history  of  Sicily  after  the  invasion. 
But  his  host  known  work  is  his  annals  of  Alexandrian 
history,  entitled  Contc.dirrc  of  Gems,  a  dreary  hook  reveal- 
ing a  credulous  mind  on  the  part  of  its  author.  During 
Said's  patriarchate  the  petty  Melchite  community  was  dis- 
turbed by  internal  quarrels,  which  led  to  the  interference  of 
the  emir,  who  took  occasion  to  seize  the  Church  treasures 
— said  by  the  Copts  to  be  very  great — and  transport  them 
to  his  palace  at  Misr.  He  only  allowed  them  to  be 
redeemed  on  payment  of  5,000  pieces  of  gold.  The 
caliphate  had  now  declined  to  a  state  of  miserable 
weakness.  In  fact  it  was  a  mere  shadow,  and  each  emir 
ruled  in  his  own  province.  Thus  Mohammed  Akchid, 
the  emir  in  Egypt  at  this  time,  became  an  independent 
governor.  It  was  useless  to  appeal  against  him  to  the 
caliph  as  the  Copts  of  an  earlier  period  had  appealed  to 
the  caliph  of  their  day.  Therefore  the  independence  of 
Egypt  only  meant  more  misery  for  the  Egyptians,  and 
that  without  hope  of  redress. 

Theophanius,  a  Coptic  patriarch  who  began  his  rule 
in  the  year  954,  added  to  the  trouljles  of  the  times  by 
developing  madness.  He  was  taken  by  water  to  Misr  for 
medical  treatment ;  but  one  night  during  the  voyage  his 
delirious  screams  so  alarmed  his  fellow-passengers,  that  one 
of  the  bishops  descended  to  the  hold  and  killed  him — by 
suffocation  or,  as  some  said,  by  poison. 

On  the  death  of  Akchid,  who  seems  to  have  been  a 
strong  ruler,  Mazzin  of  the  Fatiraite  family — the  rivals  of 
the  feeble  remnant  of  the  Abbasidte  line — -succeeded  in 
taking  Egypt.  Thus  there  was  established  the  Fatimite 
caliphate  in  Egypt,  They  settled  their  headquarters 
at  Cairo  in  the  year  970.  This  dynasty  lasted  for  two 
centuries.  At  first  promising  reform  under  a  strenuous 
government,  it  rapidly  degenerated,  most  of  the  sovereigns 
being  absorbed  in  their  own  pleasures  and  displaying  no 
great  ideas  and  no  ambitions.^  But  for  the  Christians 
much  of  this  period  afforded  a  breathing  space  between 
^  See  S.  Laue  Poole,  Hist,  of  Egypt,  p.  116. 


THE    COPTS    UNDER   THE    CALIPHATE  509 

their  long  harassing  persecutions.  Just  as  in  the  old 
Roman  times  the  strong  and  good  emperors  persecuted 
the  Church,  and  tlie  weak  and  had  emperors  let  it 
alone,  so  under  the  Mohammedan  rule,  while  the  fierce 
fanatics  of  Islam  bore  hardly  on  the  "  infidels,"  the 
negligent,  sensual  Fatimites  treated  them  with  easy 
toleranace. 

The  best  of  the  Fatimite  caliphs  was  El-Aziz  (a.d. 
975-996).  He  had  a  Christian  wife,  one  of  whose  two 
brothers  was  appointed  by  the  caliph  as  Melchite  patriarch 
of  Alexandria,  and  the  other  as  Melchite  patriarch  of 
Jerusalem.  The  Christians  were  never  so  well  treated 
under  Mohammedan  rule  in  Egypt  as  during  this  reign.^ 
Although  the  caliph  had  married  a  Melchite,  this  sect 
was  not  selected  for  exclusive  favour.  The  Coptic  patri- 
arch Ephraim  was  highly  honoured  at  court,  and  he 
obtained  leave  to  rebuild  the  ruined  church  of  St.  Mercurius. 
The  caliph  encouraged  Severus,  the  bishop  of  Ushmuneyu, 
to  discuss  questions  of  theology  with  Mussulman  scholars 
in  his  presence.  Severus  is  chiefly  known  to  us  by 
his  history,  on  which  Eenaudot  based  much  of  his 
narrative.  Like  all  the  literature  of  the  time,  it  is 
credulous  and  tedious.  Severus  was  a  voluminous  writer, 
composing  an  exposition  of  the  faith,  a  treatise  against 
Eutychius,  an  explanation  of  the  mystery  of  the 
Incarnation,  a  commentary  on  the  Gospels,  and  other 
works. 

The  liberal-minded  Caliph  El-Aziz  even  refused  to 
punish  a  Mohammedan  who  had  turned  Christian — a 
capital  offence  according  to  the  law  of  Islam.  On  the 
other  hand,  he  appointed  Christian  Copts  to  high  offices 
under  his  government.  This  course  of  action  excited  the 
jealousy  of  the  Mohammedans,  who  obtained  the  removal 
of  some  of  these  officials.  But  in  course  of  time  the 
caliph  restored  them  to  their  ])0sts.  Meanwhile  El- Aziz 
was  living  in  luxury  and  splendour ;  so  that  for  this 
brief  interval  the  members  of  the  much  persecuted  Coptic 
^  See  S.  Lane  Poole,  Hist,  of  Egypt,  p.  119. 


600  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

Church  were  able  to  enjoy  the  good  things  of  the  world, 
and  to  look  back  on  the  dark  days  of  their  fathers  as  a 
horror  of  the  past. 

Too  often  when  the  sunshine  of  worldly  prosperity 
has  shone  on  the  Church,  this  has  been  almost  fatal 
to  her  spiritual  life  and  character.  This  appears 
to  have  been  the  case  under  the  Fatimite  complacent 
rule.  Thus  the  patriarch  Philotheus  is  charged  with 
the  sin  of  simony,  of  which  we  hear  so  much  in  the 
annals  of  the  Church  in  Egypt,  but  without  the  excuse 
of  his  predecessors  in  the  old  hard  times ;  for  he  is 
said  to  have  lived  in  luxury,  and  to  have  devoted  himself 
to  the  pleasures  of  the  tal)le  and  the  bath  like  any  effete 
Oriental,  ignoring  the  duties  of  his  office  and  neglecting 
his  flock. 

This  time  of  unusual  good  fortune  for  the  Church 
in  material  affairs  was  followed  by  the  very  reverse,  a 
more  terrible  persecution  than  any  from  which  it  had 
hitherto  suffered  under  the  yoke  of  Islam — the  violent 
outbreak  of  the  mad  Caliph  Hakim,  to  which  attention 
was  directed  in  an  earlier  part  of  this  volume.^  KgyP^ 
came  in  for  her  full  share  of  suffering.  Unhappily  the 
Church  was  in  a  deplorable  condition  at  the  time,  owing 
to  quarrels  among  the  clergy.  One  of  these  quarrels 
brought  about  the  interference  of  the  government,  and  so 
precipitated  the  persecution.  John,  a  priest  of  Abunefer, 
a  village  near  the  monastery  of  St.  Macarius,  who  had 
already  paid  for  his  ambition  wlien  he  was  seeking  a 
bishopric,  by  being  thrown  into  a  pit  by  an  angry  prelate, 
had  extracted  a  promise  from  the  patriarch  Zacharias 
that  he  should  receive  appointment  to  another  bishopric. 
Furious  at  the  non-fulfilment  of  this  promise,  he  appealed 
to  El-Hakim.  The  caliph  was  only  too  glad  to  have  an 
excuse  for  attacking  the  head  of  the  Church  in  Egypt. 
He  had  Zacharias  arrested,  and, — as  the  story  which  the 
Arab  historian  Makrizi  accepted,  runs, — thrown  into  a 
den    of    lions,   who    were    miraculously    restrained    from 

^  P.  244. 


THE   COPTS    UNDER   THE    CALIPHATE  601 

hurting  him.^  In  the  later  years  of  Hakim,  when  his 
fanaticism  of  self-deification  was  ripe,  his  persecution  of 
the  Copts  was  very  severe.  All  Christian  services  were 
silenced,  except  in  the  remoter  monasteries ;  there  was  a 
wholesale  destruction  of  churches ;  Christians  were  ordered 
to  wear  heavy  crosses  and  were  subjected  to  various 
humiliations.  A  little  while  before  he  was  assassinated, 
Hakim  changed  his  policy  towards  the  Christians, 
and  ordered  the  rebuilding  of  their  churches,  and 
the  removal  of  the  worst  of  their  restrictions.  This  is 
attributed  to  the  favourable  impression  he  had  received 
when  visiting  Zacharias  in  prison,  and  observing  the 
deference  that  was  shown  to  the  little  old  man  in  shabby 
clothes. 

Zacharias  died  about   the  year    1012.      He  was  suc- 
ceeded by  Chenouda,  a  monk  of  St.  Macarius,  whose  simony 
in  the  sale  of  bishoprics  was  worse  than  that  of  any  of  his 
predecessors.    The  patriarch  acted  on  the  theory  that  on  the 
death  of  a  bishop  his  personal  property  passed  over  to  the 
Church.     Since  Hakim's  decree  of  toleration  and  restitution 
the  Copts  had  enjoyed  rest  from  persecution  by  the  govern- 
ment ;  but  now  they  were  pillaged  by  their  own  patriarch, 
who  practised  both  extortion  and  bribery,  disgracing  the 
free  and  peaceful  times  with  corrupt  Church  government. 
Some  mitigation  of  the  evil  was  accomplished  by  a  noble- 
man named  Bekr.      This  generous  reformer  worked  for  the 
relief  of  the  bishops.      To  that  end  he  promised  to  pay  to 
Alexandria    the    customary   dues   of    the   clergy  ^ — which 
were  made  up  out  of   the  bishops'  fines  on  appointment 
— if  the  bishops  in  turn  would  undertake  to  give  up  their 
exactions.     The  bishops  demurred,  and  Chenouda  after  sign- 
ing tore  up  the  document  on  which  the  terms  of  this  offer 
were  set  forth.      A  scene  of  confusion  followed.     In  the  end 
Chenouda  ordered  Bekr  to  be  arrested  and  publicly  beaten. 
This  disgraceful  patriarch  dying  in  the  year  1047  was 

1  Neale  magnanimously  believes  the  story,  although  the  miracle  was  for 
the  benefit  of  a  heretic,  Patriarchate  of  Alexandria,  vol.  ii.  p.  204. 

2  See  p.  697. 


G02  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

succeeded  by  a  reforming  patriarch,  Christobulus,  who  built 
new  churches,  conducted  ordinations  of  many  bishops,  laid 
down  and  exacted  rules  of  discipline, — mostly  concerning 
the  rubric, — and  travelled  to  and  fro  settling  the  afi'airs  of 
the  Church.  He  much  reduced  the  sale  of  offices,  but 
could  not  abolish  the  scandalous  practice.  A  fresh  outbreak 
of  persecution  took  place  in  the  time  of  Christobulus, 
and  orders  went  forth  for  the  destruction  of  churches  and 
the  seizure  of  their  treasures.  But  these  orders  were  only 
partially  executed.  The  Fatimite  caliphs  were  now  very 
weak,  and  the  government  fell  more  and  more  into  the 
hands  of  their  viziers.  The  situation  was  an  Oriental 
counterpart  of  that  of  France  under  the  Merovingian 
kings,  when  the  affairs  of  the  State  were  administered  by 
the  mayors  of  the  palace.  There  was  a  quarrel  between 
tlie  Turks  and  the  negro  slaves,  during  which  the  rioters 
behaved  as  genuine  barbarians,  ravaging  the  country, 
scattering  and  destroying  books  and  works  of  art.  Many 
of  these  treasures  from  palaces  and  monasteries  fell  into 
the  hands  of  the  Berbers,  who  tore  off  the  bindings  of 
books  to  make  slippers  out  of  them.  In  desperation  the 
caliph  sent  for  the  victorious  General  Bedr-el-Jamal  and 
made  him  dictator  in  orler  to  restore  order.  This  one 
capable  man  of  his  time,  tliough  of  course  a  Mussulman, 
even  settled  a  quarrel  in  the  Church. 


CHAPTER   rV 

THE  TURKISH  PERIOD  AND  MODERN  EGYPT 

(a)  Abu  Salih,  Churches  of  Egypt  (13th  century);  Makrizi,  History 

of  the  Copts(lAi\i  century) ;  Shamse-en-din,  Historie  d'Egypte 
(16th  century) ;  M^rnoires  de  M.  de  Maillet  (17th  century)  ; 
Renaudot,  Historia  Patriarcharum  Alexandrinorum  (18th 
century). 

(b)  Lane,   Modern  Egyptians,   5th   edit.,  1871  ;    De  la  Jouguiere, 

Hist,  de  VEmpire  Ottoumn,  2nd  edit.,  1877;  Butler,  Coptic 
Churches  of  Egypt,  1884  ;  Sir  W.  Muir,  The  Mameluke  or 
Slave  Dynasty  of  Egypt,  1896  ;  Butcher,  History  of  the  Church 
in  Egypt,  1897  ;  Kyriakoa,  Geschichte,  vol.  iii.,  Ger.  trans., 
1898;  Neale,  Patriarchate  of  Alexandria;  Lane  Poole, 
Egypt  in  the  Middle  Ages,  1901 ;  Fortesque,  The  Orthodox 
Eastern  Church,  1907. 

The  rise  of  the  Turkish  power  brought  trouble  to  the 
Copts  in  common  with  Eastern  Christians  of  other  races. 
At  first  the  Turks  appeared  as  mercenaries  of  the  Arabs, 
serving  under  Arabian  caliphs.  But  gradually  their  genius 
for  war  carried  them  to  the  front,  till  at  length  Turkish 
sultans  usurped  the  authority  of  the  caliphate.  As  early 
as  the  eleventh  century  a  band  of  rebel  Turks  robbed 
the  monasteries  of  the  Thebaid  and  murdered  many  of 
the  monks.  The  power  of  the  Fatimite  dynasty  was  now 
nearly  extinct,  and  the  Egyptian  governors  were  appointed 
by  the  soldiers  without  any  reference  to  the  caliph.  When 
the  Seleucid  Turks  were  supreme  over  the  East,  the  ill- 
treatment  of  the  pilgi'ims  at  Jerusalem  led  to  the  interfer- 
ence of  Western  Europe,  and  so  provoked  the  Crusades. 
The  result,  while  in  many  respects  disappointing,  brought 
some    relief    to    the    Greek    and  Syrian  Christians.     The 

603 


604  TIIK    CREKK    AND    KASTKRN    CHURCHES 

prdgross  of  tlie  Turks  was  arrested;  the  doom  of 
Constantinople  was  postponed ;  Jerusalem  was  ruled  by 
a  Christian  Idug  for  nearly  a  century,  and  Syria  by 
Christian  princes  more  or  less  for  two  himdred  years.  But 
all  this  brought  no  ud\antage  to  the  Copts.  In  regard  to 
the  pilgrimages  they  were  even  worse  off  than  before. 
Hitherto,  while  they  had  to  take  their  chance  of  rough 
treatment  equally  with  other  Christians,  the  Copts 
liad  also  free  access  to  the  holy  sites,  since  Islam  was 
scornfully  indifferent  to  the  rivalry  of  the  Christian  sects. 
But  when  Jerusalem  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Latins, 
although  the  masters  of  the  city  were  graciously  willing  to 
admit  a  comparative  orthodoxy  in  the  creed  of  the  Greek 
Church,  in  common  with  that  Church  they  treated  the 
Monophysite  Copts  as  heretics,  and  forbade  them  access  to 
the  Holy  City.  Thus  "  Jerusalem  delivered  "  was  barred 
against  the  national  Church  of  Egypt  by  the  Christian 
powers  of  Europe.  The  Copts  had  to  wait  for  the  recovery 
of  Palestine  by  the  Saracens  before  they  could  renew  their 
pilgrimages  to  the  tomb  of  Christ. 

The  Coptic  patriarch  at  the  time  of  the  first  Crusade 
was  Chail  iv.,  who  had  signed  a  document  promising  to 
abolish  simony  and  renounce  certain  irksome  claims  of  his 
predecessors,  as  a  condition  of  his  appointment  when  a 
monk  in  a  convent  near  Sinjara.  No  sooner  was  he  in 
power  than  he  repudiated  his  pledge,  threatening  excom- 
munication on  any  one  who  should  bring  it  up  against  him. 
He  even  procured  a  synod's  sentence  of  excommunication 
against  Chenouda,  the  bishop  of  Misr,  who  had  taken  the 
lead  in  the  simony  question.  It  cannot  but  strike  us  as 
deplorable  that,  when  the  Crusades  were  beginning  in  a 
passion  of  religious  enthusiasm,  and  when  the  Christians  of 
the  West  were  opening  up  long-closed  communications 
with  the  East,  the  Coptic  Church  in  Egypt  should  be 
represented  by  so  unworthy  a  patriarch  as  this  Chail. 

The  policy  of  the  Crusaders  revived  for  a  time  the 
flickering  flame  of  the  Melchite  patriarchate,  which  was 
then  held  by  Cyril,  a  prelate  who  was  celebrated  both  as  a 


THE  TUKKISH  PERIOD  AND  MODERN  EGYPT  605 

physician  and  as  an  author.  This  ecclesiastic  hoped  great 
things  from  the  victories  of  the  Crusaders ;  but  he  was 
grievously  disappointed.  Unlike  the  neighbouring  pro^ince 
of  Syria,  Egypt  was  never  wrested  from  the  Saracen  power. 
The  Fatimite  caliphs  were  no  friends  to  the  Turkish  rule,  and 
when  they  heard  of  the  approach  of  the  first  Crusade  they 
tried  to  make  terms  with  the  invaders  from  the  "West.  But 
the  situation  was  complicated  by  the  fact  that  in  a  period 
of  temporary  weakness  among  the  Turks,  after  the  reign  of 
the  three  strong  sultans  who  had  established  the  Seleucid 
dynasty,  the  Fatimites  had  recovered  Jerusalem.  When 
they  perceived  that  the  Crusaders  were  enemies  of  all 
Islam,  and  not  only  foes  of  the  Turks,  they  were  unable  to 
proceed  with  their  negotiations.  They,  too,  were  put  on  the 
defensive,  and  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  was  a  great  blow  to 
them,  while  it  brought  no  relief  to  their  Christian  sulgects 
in  Egypt.  At  the  same  time  Cyril  was  alarmed  for  his 
ecclesiastical  prestige,  on  learning  that  Baldwin  had  obtained 
a  papal  bull  granting  all  new  concjuests  from  the  infidels 
to  the  patriarchate  of  Jerusalem — now  a  schismatic  Latin 
patriarchate.  Since  Egypt  was  never  conquered  by  the 
Crusaders,  however,  this  act  of  Eoman  usurpation  did  not 
really  affect  him.  Meanwhile,  although  there  were  inva- 
sions of  Egypt  by  the  Crusaders,  since  they  were  not  able 
to  conquer  the  country,  the  native  Christians  gained  nothincr 
by  them. 

The  feeble  Fatimite  dynasty,  which  had  recovered  its 
power  temporarily  at  the  end  of  the  tenth  century,  declined 
in  the  second  half  of  the  next  century.  Aded,  the 
last  caliph  of  this  line,  saw  his  dominions  ravaged, 
both  by  the  Turks  and  by  the  Kurds  under  Shawer, 
who  burnt  Babylon  —  with  what  consequences  to  the 
Christians  we  do  not  know  (a.d.  1168),  and  overrun 
more  than  once  by  Amaric,  the  Christian  King  of  Jeru- 
salem. On  the  death  of  Aded  in  the  year  1171,  the 
famous  Saladin  succeeded  to  the  government  of  Ecrypt, 
with  the  title  of  sultan,  which  he  held  imder  the  calij  li 
of  Bagdad,  and  no  Fatimite  caliph  was  appointed.      But 


606  THK   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

u  shadowy  caliphate  of  the  Abbasidae  line  was  now  restored 
for  the  sake  of  appearances. 

About  this  time  the  Coptic  Church  was  disturbed  by  a 
controversy  concerning  the  confessional,  a  glance  at  which 
throws  some  light  on  its  customs  and  life,  and  so  affords 
a  relief  from  the  dreary  succession  of  quarrels  concern- 
ing episcopal  appointments  and  fines  and  exactions  that 
occupies  too  much  of  the  history.  There  had  grown  up 
a  strange  custom  of  confessing  to  a  censer.  The  censer  that 
used  to  be  swung  in  connection  with  the  pronunciation  of 
absolution  had  been  taken  by  itself  and  placed  in  the  corner 
of  a  room,  for  the  penitent  to  make  his  confession  before  it  in 
private  without  the  aid  of  any  priest.  There  are  two  ways 
of  regarding  this  curious  practice.  It  may  be  looked  upon 
as  a  protest  against  the  confessional,  an  effort  to  get  free  of 
the  priestly  interference  with  the  liberty  of  the  laity  of 
which  that  institution  is  the  most  powerful  instrument. 
Here  was  an  expedient  by  means  of  which  the  penitent 
could  dispense  with  the  priest.  Considered  in  this  way 
the  irregularity  was  indicative  of  a  revolt  against  sacer- 
dotalism, an  anticipation  of  the  great  Protestant  idea  that 
Luther  expounds  in  his  tractate  on  Christian  Liberty — 
"  the  priesthood  of  all  Christians."  But,  in  view  of  the 
stagnation  and  superstition  of  the  times  in  the  Eastern 
Churches,  we  cannot  press  this  point.  The  presence  of  the 
censer  is  too  suspiciously  indicative  of  a  magical  element 
in  religion,  as  though  this  material  object  with  its  ascending 
smoke  were  credited  with  performing  the  high  office  of 
priestly  intercession.  One  grave  reason  offered  for  the 
practice  was  the  notoriously  bad  character  of  many  of  the 
priests.  Meanwhile  there  was  this  basis  for  the  supersti- 
tion of  the  censer,  that  in  the  regular  services  the  incense 
burnt  at  the  commencement  of  the  liturgy  was  supposed  to 
be  in  some  mysterious  way  connected  with  the  remission  of 
sins  of  the  congregation  through  their  private  confession. 
The  practice  was  oi)posed  hy  Mark  the  son  of  Kimbar,  a 
priest  who  preached  earnestly  against  it.  His  opponents 
got  him  excommunicated  on  a  charge  of  having  dismissed 


THE   TURKISH    PERIOD    AND    MODERN   EGYPT     607 

his  wife  and  induced  some  one  else  to  marry  her.  Still 
he  preached,  however,  insisting  on  the  necessity  of  con- 
fessing to  a  priest  in  order  to  obtain  absolution.  The  people 
flocked  to  him  in  crowds,  both  to  hear  his  sermons  and  to 
confess  to  him.  The  matter  became  so  serious  that  a  synod, 
said  to  have  consisted  of  sixty  bishops,  met  and  pronounced 
against  him.  He  was  deposed,  and  then  he  appealed  to 
the  Moslem  power,  with  a  memorial  stating  that  he  had 
preached  nothing  contrary  to  canonical  authority  or  the 
teaching  of  the  Fathers,  and  demanding  a  fair  trial  accord- 
ing to  the  rules  of  the  Church.  Such  a  reference  to  the 
government  is  most  significant,  since  it  shows  that  in  spite 
of  so  much  that  was  oppressive,  the  Christians  recognised 
in  it  the  centre  of  law  and  order.  The  sequel  confirms 
the  reasonableness  of  this  view.  The  civil  authorities 
commanded  the  patriarch  to  institute  a  trial;  but  he 
refused,  for  the  authorities  of  the  Church  as  represented 
by  the  episcopate  were  on  his  side.  Michael  of  Damietta 
took  the  lead  in  supporting  the  novel  custom,  writing  a 
short  treatise  on  it  which  is  still  in  existence.  The  next 
stage  was  an  appeal  to  Michael  i.,  the  Jacobite  patriarch  of 
Antioch,  who  wavered  in  his  treatment  of  the  question. 
At  first  he  inclined  to  the  view  of  the  bishops,  and  was 
induced  to  regard  Mark  as  a  heretic ;  but  on  learning 
more  about  the  case  he  swung  round  to  the  opposite  view, 
and  supported  the  practice  of  confession  to  the  priest. 
Both  this  patriarch  and  the  learned  writer  Bar  Salibi 
wrote  on  the  necessity  of  that  practice.  Mark,  however, 
found  little  comfort  in  his  own  Church,  since  the  bishops 
were  still  opposed  to  him.  He  joined  the  Greek  Church, 
returned  to  the  Coptic,  went  over  to  the  Greek  communion 
again,  and  yet  again  sought  to  be  readmitted  to  his  own 
old  Church.  It  is  not  surprising  that  the  Coptic  patriarch 
refused  to  have  any  more  to  do  with  him. 

It  is  curious  to  find  Neale  championing  Mark  as 
"  the  English  Chillingworth."  The  outstanding  feature 
of  the  whole  story  is  the  fact  that  the  bishops  were 
supporting  the  novel  practice,  which,  however  materialistic 


608  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

and  su])erstitious  we  may  hold  it  to  be,  was  nevertheless 
partially  Protestant  in  its  opposition  to  sacerdotalism, 
while  on  this  occasion  the  protestor  stood  for  the  rights 
and  powers  of  the  priests.  Such  a  situation  is  unique  in 
history.  It  is  tantalising  to  know  too  little  of  the  motives 
of  the  chief  actors  in  it  for  adequate  judgment  of  its  true 
inwardness.  When  bishops  champion  the  rights  of  the 
laity  against  the  priestly  claims  of  presbyters,  the  inference 
is  that  since  some  of  them  are  men  of  culture  and  reading, 
wliile  the  lower  clergy  are  steeped  in  ignorance,  the  reason 
is  disciplinary  rather  than  doctrinal.  The  ignorant  priests 
were  not  fit  to  be  trusted  with  the  machinery  of  the 
confessional.  Some  of  them  were  men  of  no  character. 
Discerning  bishops  might  well  discourage  confession  to 
such  men,  because  they  saw  that  it  was  safer  for  simple 
souls  to  confess  to  the  smoking  censer,  which,  if  it  could 
not  give  ghostly  advice,  was  at  least  free  from  any 
corrupting  influence. 

In  the  earlier  part  of  his  reign  Saladin  removed 
the  Christians  from  public  offices  and  laid  upon  them 
many  vexatious  restrictions,  such  as  the  prohibition  of 
bell -ringing,  crosses  on  churches,  procession  on  Palm 
Sundays,  chanting  of  services  in  a  loud  voice.  He 
directed  the  churches  to  be  painted  black.  Nevertheless, 
he  was  a  large-minded,  strong  ruler,  who  secured  good 
order  in  his  dominions.  If  the  Christians  were  shut  out  of 
office  they  were  also  spared  the  fines  that  his  mean  prede- 
cessors had  too  often  attached  to  public  functions,  so  that 
it  really  seemed  that  the  posts  were  allotted  for  the  sake 
of  the  backshish.  In  his  later  days  Saladin  readmitted 
Christians  to  the  government  service.  It  is  not  surprising 
that  under  these  circumstances  there  were  some  Christians 
who  apostasised  to  Mohammedanism,  favour  drawing  them 
where  persecution  had  failed  to  drive.  But  when  a  certain 
monk  who  had  joined  Islam  returned  to  his  monastery,  a 
soldier  was  sent  with  orders  to  put  him  to  death  unless  he 
came  back  to  the  religion  of  the  Prophet.  This  was  quite 
in  accordance  with   Mussulman  law.     A  Christian  might 


THE   TURKISH    PERIOD    AND    MODERN    EGYPT     609 

remain  a  Christian,  but  when  once  he  had  become  a 
Mohammedan  he  came  under  the  stern  rule  of  Islam, 
which  exacts  the  death  penalty  on  all  who  forsake  the 
creed  of  the  Prophet.  The  miserable  waverer  not  only 
yielded  to  the  threat  of  death,  but  he  even  lodged  with 
the  government  information  of  treasure  which  he  said  the 
monastery  that  had  given  him  an  asylum  contained.  Very 
little  was  found  there,  and  that  little  was  returned  when 
the  whole  story  was  known. 

The  later  Crusades  had  hardly  any  more  effect  on  the 
Church  in  Egypt  than  had  been  the  case  with  the 
earlier  expeditions  from  Europe  for  the  recovery  of  the 
Holy  Land.  The  siege  of  Damietta  (a.d.  1218)  and  the 
ill-fated  expedition  of  St.  Louis  (a.d.  1248-1250)  were 
wholly  affairs  of  the  Latin  Church  with  which  the  Copts 
had  no  concern.  Had  these  wars  been  successful  in  the 
end,  they  would  have  been  free  from  the  yoke  of  Islam 
only  to  face  the  demand  of  submission  to  Eome.  Mean- 
while the  Saracen  rule  of  Egypt  was  more  just  and 
enlightened  than  any  form  of  government  that  the  Copts 
had  ever  known  before.  There  was  therefore  little  tempta- 
tion for  them  to  give  much  material  aid  to  the  Crusaders. 
Unhappily  their  own  internal  history  at  this  time  does 
not  furnish  us  with  an  edifying  record.  Quarrels  on  the 
election  of  patriarchs,  and  charges  of  simony  against 
patriarchs  when  in  power,  are  the  chief  items  that  break 
the  monotony  of  the  narrative.  The  Sultan  Kamel 
refused  an  offer  of  heavy  bribes  to  favour  the  election  of 
a  candidate  for  the  patriarchate.  He  was  so  pleased  with 
a  visit  he  paid  to  the  monastery  of  St.  Macarius  that  he 
richly  endowed  it  and  granted  its  monks  several  privileges. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  patriarch  Cyril,  who  was  appointed 
during  his  reign  and  very  affably  received  by  the  sultan, 
turned  out  to  be  a  cause  of  great  trouble  in  the  Church. 
He  was  guilty  of  outrageous  simony — the  typical  offence 
of  the  Eygptian  patriarchs  of  which  we  hear  again  and 
again  in  successive  ages.  There  had  been  a  gap  in  the 
patriarchate  which  had  resulted  in  many  vacancies  in  the 
39 


GIO  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

bishoprics.  Cyril  ordained  forty  bishops,  and  accumulated 
a  very  considerable  sum  of  money  by  means  of  the  large 
fees  he  exacted  from  thcin.  At  length  he  was  arrested  on 
charges  of  malversation  of  funds  and  sent  to  Cairo.  The 
l)ishops  now  proposed  terms  to  him.  He  should  give  up 
the  practice  of  simony,  and  have  his  authority  limited  in 
several  directions ;  but  he  was  liberated  by  favour  of  the 
sultan  without  agreeing  to  these  terms.  Subsequently,  since 
fresh  complaints  were  brought  forward,  fourteen  bishops  of 
Lower  Egypt  met  at  Cairo  and  induced  him  to  consent  to 
a  number  of  reforms,  among  which  was  the  requirement 
that  the  consecration  of  bishops  and  priests  should  be 
performed  free  of  charge.  But  the  quarrel  went  on. 
Cyril  was  repeatedly  accused  to  the  sultan  and  repeatedly 
fined.  Yet  so  great  was  the  influence  of  his  office  that  he 
was  able  to  raise  all  the  funds  requisite  to  satisfy  the 
government.  He  held  the  control  of  the  mighty  engine  of 
ordination.  If  he  refused  to  ordain  bishops  the  episcopate 
would  die  out,  and  with  it  the  priesthood,  and  with 
that  the  Chirrch  itself.  The  sacerdotal  system  derived 
all  its  authority  primarily  from  the  patriarch.  When 
religion  depends  on  the  sacraments,  the  sacraments  on  the 
priests,  the  priests  on  the  bishops,  and  the  bishops  on  the 
patriarch — without  whose  concurrence  their  ordination  is 
uncanonical,  this  supreme  prelate  holds  the  key  of  the  situa- 
tion. He  can  exact  his  own  terms  before  consenting  to 
ordain.  Thus  he  can  obtain  sufficient  money  to  bribe  the 
civil  authority  when  that  authority,  the  only  power  above 
him,  is  in^'oked  to  interfere  with  his  tyrannical  practices.  In 
this  way  Cyril  was  able  to  continue  his  disgraceful  practices 
till  his  death  relieved  the  Copts  of  the  incubus  of  his 
patriarchal  rule  (a.d.  1243). 

The  subsequent  story  of  the  Coptic  Church  becomes 
less  and  less  interesting,  except  at  one  or  two  points,  where 
its  monotony  is  broken  by  the  emergence  of  a  striking  per- 
sonality or  by  the  occurrence  of  events  in  the  outer  world. 
The  oriojiial  sources  for  the  history  are  here  very  meagre, 
80    that    we    have    not    materials    from    which    to    come 


THE   TURKISH    PERIOD    AND    MODERN   EGYPT     611 

to  an  adequate  knowledge  of  the  succession  of  events. 
But  what  is  preserved  is  enough  to  show  that  we  do  not 
lose  much  for  lack  of  fuller  information.  We  are  now 
approaching  the  age  of  the  INIamelukes.  These  were  at 
first  barbarous  slaves  who  pushed  to  the  front  and  seized 
the  power  of  government.  Their  rule  began  in  the 
year  1260,  and  it  came  as  an  improvement  on  the 
government  of  the  degenerate  sultans  and  caliphs.  They 
elevated  two  successive  nominal  caliphs  of  the  Abbasidte 
line,  who  were  mere  shadows.  After  the  year  1,382 
a  Circassian  dynasty  of  Mamelukes  ruled,  without  that 
pretence  of  respect  for  antiquarianism.  The  Mamelukes 
have  been  described  as  "jealous,  cruel,  suspicious,  avari- 
cious." ^  But  they  lightened  taxes  and  executed  some 
public  works.  These  rulers  of  an  alien  race  held  them- 
selves aloof  both  from  the  Arabs  and  from  the  Copts. 
They  remained  in  power  till  the  year  1517.  It  was 
reaUy  an  oligarchical  government  with  nominal  boy  sultans, 
carried  on  in  the  midst  of  plots  and  assassinations.  Mean- 
while great  events  were  being  transacted  in  Eastern  Europe, 
But  the  establishment  of  the  Ottoman  rule  and  the  fall  of 
Constantinople  had  no  appreciable  effect  on  the  fortunes  of 
the  Copts.  They  had  been  long  under  the  yoke  of  Islam, 
and  the  change  of  masters  from  one  dynasty  to  another, 
and  even  from  race  to  race,  made  little  difference  to  their 
subject  condition.  Just  and  merciful  governors  left  them 
at  peace  with  their  guaranteed  rights ;  vicious  and  ini- 
(juitous  rulers  preyed  upon  them  and  persecuted  them. 
The  variations  of  treatment  depended  more  on  the  personnel 
of  the  authorities  than  on  the  name  and  source  of  the 
government. 

Within  the  Church  itself  the  movement  of  the  times 
brought  two  successive  influences  from  without  to  bear  on 
it.  These  were  the  Uniat  propaganda  associated  with  the 
council  of  Florence  and  the  Protestant  ideas  that  Cyril 
Lucar  introduced  after  his  travels  in  the  West. 

The  Coptic  Church  had  but  little  active  concern  with 
'  Sir  W.  Muir,  The  Mamelukes,  etc.,  p.  66, 


612  THE   GREEK   AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

the  efforts  of  men  in  the  East  to  come  to  terms  with  the 
Western  Church.  The  origin  and  motives  of  these  efforts 
were  not  religious  or  even  ecclesiastical ;  they  were  purely 
political.  John  Paleeologus  and  other  emperors  saw  the 
desperate  need  of  a  European  alliance  if  the  onward  march 
of  the  Turks  was  to  be  stayed  and  the  last  remnants  of  the 
Byzantine  Empire  preserved.  What  interest  had  that 
policy  for  the  Copts,  already  subject  to  Islam  and  not  of 
the  Greek  communion  ?  Nevertheless  the  Coptic  patriarch, 
John  XI.,  sent  John  the  abbot  of  St.  Antony  as  a  delegate 
to  Florence.  He  did  not  arrive  till  after  the  Greeks  had 
left.  This  will  account  for  the  fact  that  the  council 
decreed  union  with  the  Coptic  Church.  But  it  had 
previously  effected  a  nominal  union  with  the  Greek 
Church.  And  yet  these  two  Churches  mutually  anathemat- 
ised one  another.  The  consequences  would  have  been 
interesting  if  there  had  been  any  reality  in  the  acts  of 
union.  But  since,  in  point  of  fact,  they  were  never 
accepted  by  either  of  the  Eastern  Churches,  they  can 
only  be  regarded  as  pious  pronouncements  in  the  region 
of  idea.  Metrophanes,  the  metropolitan  of  Cyzicum, 
whom  the  emperor  made  patriarch  of  Constantinople 
on  accoimt  of  his  staunch  support  of  the  union  of  the 
Greeks  and  Latins,  was  denounced  by  the  three  other  Greek 
patriarchs  as  a  "  matricide " — for  kilHng  his  "  mother 
Church."  The  union  with  the  Jacobites  was  no  more 
real,  and  the  Copts  still  remained  in  separation  from  the 
Latin  as  well  as  from  the  Greek  Chm-ches. 

The  story  of  Cyril  Lucar  belongs  to  the  Greek 
Church,  and  therefore  it  has  been  given  earlier  in  this 
volume.^  We  are  accustomed  to  think  of  him  as  the 
patriarch  of  Alexandria  before  he  was  translated  to  the 
patriarchate  of  Constantinople.  But  he  was  the  Melchite 
patriarch,  the  representative  of  the  alien  Greek  communion 
with  its  few  adherents  in  Alexandria  and  its  neighbour- 
hood.  Still  it  is  a  fact  of  significance  in  regard  to 
Christianity  in  Egypt,  that  although  not  a  member  of  the 
»  See  pp.  309  ff. 


THE    TURKISH    PERIOD    AND    MODERN    KOYPT     G 1  :' 

national  Church,  Cyril  introduced  the  new  learning  into 
that  country.  He  appeared  as  a  vigorous  opponent  of 
Rome,  and  many  who  had  no  notion  of  what  Protestantism 
was  saying  and  doing  in  the  West  were  ready  to  welcome 
a  man  who  shared  the  general  aversion  to  union  with  the 
papacy  that  was  felt  by  the  Greek  Church  in  Egypt. 
There  can  be  no  doubt,  however,  that  he  was  strongly 
imbued  with  Protestantism.  A  modern  Roman  Catholic 
historian  says  of  him,  "  He  was  a  Protestant  who 
formed  a  party  of  Calvinists  in  his  Church,  and  his 
opinions  were  afterwards  condemned  by  four  councils."  ^ 
Cyril  influenced  a  group  of  men  in  Alexandria  of  his  own 
Church  in  the  direction  of  Protestantism.  But  the  time 
was  peculiarly  unpropitious  for  the  spread  of  similar 
influences  among  the  Copts,  because  they  were  still  in  a 
measure  compromised  by  the  nominal  union  with  Rome 
that  had  been  pronounced  at  Florence. 

By  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century  the  national 
Church  in  Egypt  was  in  a  feeble  condition,  at  the  very 
ebb  of  its  fortunes ;  and  the  Melchite  Church  was  even 
lower,  being  reduced  to  little  else  than  a  nominal  patri- 
archate. Then  came  Peter  vn.,  a  good  man  who  was 
anxious  to  improve  matters.  In  the  year  1833,  Curzon 
visited  Egypt  in  search  of  manuscripts  that  he  hoped  to 
find  among  the  monasteries.  He  was  followed  by  Arch- 
deacon Tattam,  who  roused  some  interest  in  England  by 
his  accounts  of  the  ignorant  and  depressed  condition  of 
the  Coptic  Christians,  the  first  consequence  of  which  was 
an  issue  of  an  Arabic  version  of  the  four  Gospels  by  the 
British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society.  In  the  year  1840  the 
Society  for  Promoting  Christian  Knowledge  produced  an 
Arabic  translation  of  old  Egyptian  commentaries.  About 
the  same  time  Grimshaw,  an  English  clergyman,  went  to 
Egypt  and  helped  to  start  a  school  that  was  conducted  by 
a  Mr.  Lieder  for  the  training  of  priests.  This  school  met 
with  little  encouragement.  Peter  died  in  the  year  1854, 
and  was  succeeded  by  Cyril,  at  first  an  active  reformer  of 

*  Fortescue,  The  Orthodox  Eastern  Church,  p.  264. 


614  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

the  Coptic  Church.  This  enlightened  patriarch  established 
schools  for  girls  as  well  as  for  boys,  rebuilt  the  cathedral, 
destroyed  pictures  as  idols,  gathered  a  new  council  to 
help  him,  and  established  a  college  at  Cairo  in  charge 
of  Philotheus,  an  able,  learned  man.  Unfortunately  the 
patriarch  would  not  give  the  principal  a  free  hand,  and, 
being  dissatisfied  with  his  teaching,  broke  the  college  up. 

In  the  year  1890  a  society  of  young  laymen  was 
constituted  for  reforming  the  Coptic  Church,  and  it  issued 
pamphlets  in  Arabic.  Then  Cyril  got  up  a  rival  society 
called  "  the  Orthodox."  A  public  meeting  was  called  to 
meet  Cyril,  which  so  alarmed  the  patriarch  that  he  put 
himself  under  the  protection  of  the  police.  His  next  step 
was  to  call  a  synod,  at  which  he  gave  the  bishops  a  state- 
ment requiring  them  to  sign  it  and  read  it  in  their 
churches.  He  would  reform  the  Church ;  but  this  must 
be  in  his  own  way.  Of  course  there  was  great  dissatisfac- 
tion at  such  high-handed  proceedings,  and  the  Khedive 
Tew  fie  intervened.  But  Cyril  would  not  listen  to  persuasion. 
A  new  council  was  elected,  in  which  Athanasius  of  Sanabu, 
a  bishop  of  the  young  reform  party,  was  a  member.  Cyril 
excommunicated  him.  Such  conduct  was  unbearable,  and 
the  reformers  got  Cyril  banished  to  Nitria.  Meanwhile 
every  effort  was  made  to  induce  him  to  withdraw  the 
excommunication  of  Athanasius,  but  in  vain.  At  last 
Athanasius  and  his  supporters  simply  ignored  it.  Then 
came  a  reaction  from  the  older  people ;  Cyril  was  recalled, 
and  his  return  was  a  triumph,  although  he  had  proved 
himself  an  obstinate,  tyrannical  prelate.  Still  there  was 
progress  in  spite  of  these  difficulties.  The  stagnation  of 
the  Coptic  Church  has  been  largely  due  to  the  ignorance 
of  the  priests.  There  is  now  some  progress  towards  an 
education  of  candidates  for  the  ministry,  and  therefore 
hope  of  better  times  to  come.  The  Copts  look  to  England 
for  sympathy,  and  rejoice  in  the  Enghsh  rule  of  Egypt. 
They  know  that  if  England  had  not  stepped  in  to  suppress 
the  rebellion  of  Arabi  Pasha  they  would  have  been  massacred 
wholesale. 


CHAPTER   V 

ABYSSINIAN   CHRISTIANITY 

(a)  Rufinus;  Socrates;  Sozomen;  Theodoret;  Nicephorus;  Zonaras; 

Cedrenus  ;  Jolin  of  Ephesus  ;  Arabian  authorities  ;  Alvarez 
(trans,  by  Lord  Stanley  of  Alderley) ;  Tellez,  Historia 
de  Ethiopia,  1660 ;  Ludolphus,  History  of  Ethiopia,  1684  ; 
Geddes,  Church  History  of  Ethiopia,  1696  ;  Le  Quien,  Oriens. 
Christ,  ii.,  1741  ;  Bruce,  Travels,  1768-73. 

(b)  Reynolds  in  Smith's  Did.  of  Christian  Biography,  art.  "  Ethiopian 

Church "  ;  Wright,  Christianity  in  Arabia,  1855  ;  Hotten, 
Abyssinia  Described,  1868  ;  Portal,  My  Mission  to  Abyssinia, 
1892 ;  Duchesne,  Les  Missions  Chrdiens  au  sud  de  Vempire 
Bomain,  1896  ;    Lauribar,  Douze  ans  en  Abysinnie,  1898. 

Abyssinian  Christianity  is  a  Judaistic,  Monophysite  form 
of  religion  which  has  been  corrupted  in  the  course  of  ages 
during  its  long  severance  from  the  influences  of  the  rest 
of  Christendom.  It  is  naturally  most  nearly  associated 
with  the  Coptic  Church,  because  it  derived  its  origin  from 
Egypt,  agreed  with  the  Copts  in  following  Dioscurus  in  his 
opposition  to  the  decrees  of  Chalcedon,  formerly  owned 
allegiance  to  the  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  and  for  a  long 
while  kept  in  touch  with  the  Christians  of  Egypt.  Between 
Abyssinia,  known  as  Ethiopia  in  early  times,  and  Egypt  was 
Nubia,  for  long  an  independent  Christian  nation.  When 
that  country  was  conquered  by  the  Arabs  and  its  Chris- 
tianity simply  wiped  out,  Abyssinia  was  cut  off  from  all 
direct  relations  with  Egypt.  There  was  still  the  Eed  Sea 
route,  the  route  by  which  the  gospel  reached  Abyssinia 
in  the  first  instance.  But  when  Egypt  was  subject  to  the 
Mussulman  rule  the  Copts  had  neither  the  heart  nor  the 
power  to  use  it  in  order  to  keep  in  touch  with  a  remote 

615 


616  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

nation    in    the    south   with    which    they    were   no    longer 
directly  connected. 

Like  the  name  "  India,"  the  word  "  Ethiopia  "  is  used 
in  the  vaguest  way  by  ancient  writers.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  these  two  names  sometimes  overlap.  The  land 
on  both  sides  of  the  Eed  Sea  to  the  south  was  known  as 
P^thiopia.  The  Queen  of  Sheba  may  have  come  either 
from  Asia  or  from  Africa.  But  the  Ethiopia  of  which  we 
know  in  Christian  times  was  undoubtedly  in  Africa.  The 
extent  of  land  to  which  the  name  is  given  is  never  defined, 
but  we  may  understand  it  as  roughly  corresponding  to 
our  modern  Abyssinia,  a  country  the  limits  of  which 
are  not  determined  in  the  present  day.  Abyssinia  is  a 
form  of  the  name  given  by  the  Arabs  (Hahesh,  meaning 
"  mixture,"  "  confusion,"  because  of  the  mixed  character  of 
the  peoples  inhabiting  it) ;  but  the  Abyssinians  still  call 
themselves  "  Ethiopians "  {Itiopyavan)  and  their  country 
"  Ethiopia "  (Itiopia).  The  Jewish  character  of  some  of 
the  customs  of  the  Abyssinians  has  given  rise  to  the  con- 
jecture that  these  people  were  influenced  by  the  Jews 
before  they  became  Christian ;  but  the  fact  that  some  of 
those  customs,  such  as  circumcision,  distinctions  of  clean 
and  unclean  food,  and  the  levirate  marriage,  are  much  more 
widespread,  being  found  more  or  less  in  Arabia  and  in 
other  parts  of  Africa,  tends  to  destroy  the  grounds  of  this 
hypothesis.  Dr.  Eeynolds  suggested  that  the  observance  of 
the  seventh -day  Sabbath  in  Abyssinia  may  be  traced  to 
Judaic  influences  in  ancient  Christianity.^  Still,  the  number 
of  coincidences  creates  a  cumulative  argument  in  favour  of 
the  spread  of  early  Jewish  ideas.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  diaspora  was  immensely  influential  for  two  or 
three  centuries.  Its  missionary  activity  has  been  unfairly 
disregarded  because  thrown  into  the  shade  by  the  greater 
activity  of  the  Christian  evangelism  that  both  absorbed 
and  superseded  it.  The  story  of  the  Ethiopian  eunuch  in 
Acts  points  to  the  early  introduction  of  Christianity  into 
Africa.     But  the  name  "  Candace  "  which  is  there  given  to 

*  Smith,  Die.  Christ.  Biog.  vol.  ii.  p.  234*. 


ABYSSINIAN    CHRISTIANITY  617 

the  queen  is  not  found  in  Ethiopia  proper.  It  is  known  to 
have  been  the  title  of  a  succession  of  queens  at  Meroe  on 
the  Upper  Nile  (half-way  between  Berber  and  Kartoum) ; 
so  that  the  Ethiopian  eunuch  would  be  a  Nubian  from 
the  Soudan.  Christianity  could  reach  Ethiopia  more 
easily  from  the  coast ;  and  that  it  did  so  in  early  times  is 
implied  by  a  remark  of  Origen  :  "  We  are  not  told  that  the 
gospel  has  been  preached  among  all  the  Ethiopians."  ^ 

We  come  to  the  fourth  century  for  the  effective  intro- 
duction of  Christianity  into  Ethiopia.  Seeing  that  Eufinus, 
who  is  our  earliest  authority,  tells  us  that  he  obtained  his 
information  direct  from  one  of  the  two  young  men  whose 
story  he  gives,  we  may  consider  that  we  have  here  come 
upon  an  unusually  good  historical  source.^  The  story  is 
repeated  with  some  variations  by  the  Greek  historians.^ 
It  is  as  follows :  Meropius,  a  philosopher  from  Tyre,  took 
two  young  relations — perhaps  sons — named  Frumentius 
and  ^desius  on  a  voyage  of  exploration  in  the  direction  of 
"  India."  On  the  way  they  put  into  a  port  by  the  African 
side  of  the  Red  Sea  for  water.  The  people  of  these  parts 
had  recently  revolted  from  Rome,  and  they  murdered 
Meropius  and  the  whole  of  the  ship's  crew,  but  spared 
the  two  young  men,  touched  with  pity  for  them  when  they 
discovered  them  apart  from  their  companions  quietly  seated 
reading  under  a  tree.  They  sent  them  to  their  king,  who 
made  ^desius  his  cupbearer  and  Frumentius  the  keeper  of 
his  rolls.  On  the  death  of  the  king  the  young  men  were 
set  at  liberty  ;  but  at  the  request  of  the  queen,  who  was  now 
regent,  they  consented  to  remain  and  help  in  the  administra- 
tion of  the  government  during  the  minority  of  her  son. 
Frumentius,  who  was  the  abler  and  more  energetic  of  the 
two,  now  sought  out  the  Christians  among  the  Roman 
merchants  in  the  country,  and  gave  them  authority  and 
advice  for  building  churches.  As  yet  this  was  only  a 
movement  among  the  foreign  residents.      But  here   was 

'  Origen,  Comment,  on  Matt.  xxiv.  9. 

'  Riifinus,  Hist.  Eccl.  i.  9. 

•  Socrates,  i.  19  ;  Sozoraen  ii.  24 ;  Theodoret,  i.  23. 


618  THE   GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

the  seed  of  the  great  missionary  work  that  was  destined 
to  make  the  name  of  Frumentius  famous  in  Christian 
history.  In  spite  of  the  queen's  entreaties,  the  two 
brothers  left  the  country  when  the  young  prince  was 
old  enough  to  undertake  the  resjionsibilities  of  government. 
They  must  both  have  been  of  an  earnest  religious  character, 
for  ^.desius  became  a  presbyter  at  Tyre,  where  Eufinus 
received  the  story  from  his  own  lips,  while  Frumentius 
went  to  Alexandria  in  order  to  urge  its  bishop,  who  was 
no  other  than  the  great  Athanasius,  to  appoint  a  bishop 
for  undertaking  missionary  work  in  Ethiopia.  Athanasius 
brought  the  matter  before  a  synod,  and  there  addressing 
Frumentius,  said,  "  What  other  man  shall  we  find  such  as 
thou  art,  in  whom  is  the  spirit  of  God,  as  He  is  in  thee, 
who  will  be  able  to  discharge  these  duties  ? "  Accordingly 
Frumentius  was  ordained  bishop  of  Auxume  in  Ethiopia. 
He  was  called  Ahba  Salama  ("  Father  of  Peace  "),  a  title 
borne  by  his  successors  down  to  the  present  day.  This 
story  is  confirmed  and  added  to  by  the  literature  of  the 
Ethiopian  Church — its  annals,  liturgy,  and  poetry. 

Subsequently  Constantius  wrote  to  the  King  of  Ethiopia 
urging  him  to  replace  Frumentius  by  Theophilus,  an  Arian, 
who  was  under  George,  the  Arian  bishop  imposed  on  the 
Church  of  Alexandria ;  but  his  letter  does  not  appear  to 
have  had  any  effect,  and  Arianism  did  not  penetrate  into 
the  Ethiopian  Church.  After  this  we  know  little  of  the 
history  of  that  Church  for  a  long  time.  But  a  number  of 
saints  are  celebrated  in  Ethiopian  poetry,  among  whom  is 
Aragawi,  who  is  confused  with  the  archangel  Michael,  the 
patron  of  the  Church  and  the  kingdom,  to  whom  the  twelfth 
day  in  every  month  is  consecrated. 

There  is  another  story  of  the  conversion  of  Ethiopia, 
told  by  Nicephorus,  corresponding  to  which  is  the  account 
in  John  of  Ephesus.  According  to  this  story,  the  Emperor 
of  Ethiopia  vowed  that  if  he  conquered  the  Homerites  of 
the  Red  Sea  coast  he  would  embrace  Christianity,  and  that 
having  obtained  the  victory  he  appealed  to  Justinian  for 
help  in  carrying  out  his  vow,  when  the  Roman  emperor 


ABYSSINIAN    CHRISTIANITY  (319 

responded  by  sending  him  bishops.  The  Monojihysite 
character  of  Ethiopian  Christianity  is  enough  to  contra- 
dict this  story,  and  there  are  other  improbabihties  con- 
nected with  it.  We  must  always  associate  Abyssinian 
Christianity  with  the  Coptic,  not  with  the  Byzantine  type 
About  this  time  there  was  a  persecution  of  Christians  in 
South  Arabia  under  Dunaan,  a  Jewish  usurper,  and  among 
the  martyrs  was  Aretas,  who  had  come  from  Auzume  as 
governor  of  the  province.  He  and  his  wife  and  a 
number  of  other  Christians  were  cruelly  martyred  in  a 
pit  of  fire. 

Monasticism  was  introduced  into  Ethiopia  in  the  fifth 
century,  and  it  has  remained  as  one  of  the  institutions 
of  Abyssinian  Christianity  down  to  the  present  day.  There 
is  a  large  number  of  monks  and  nuns  in  the  country, 
as  well  as  married  priests  after  the  manner  of  the  Oriental 
Churches  generally.  The  Ethiopic  canon  of  Scriptures 
is  of  curious  interest.  It  contains  several  books  not  in- 
cluded in  the  canons  of  the  Eastern  and  Western  Catholic 
Churches.  The  Old  Testament  has  all  the  Septuagint 
books  except  Maccabees,  together  with  the  Books  of  Enoch, 
Jubilees,  iv.  Ezra,  and  other  apocryphal  writings,  and  the 
New  Testament  books  are  reckoned  at  thirty-five — eight 
books  of  the  Canon  Law  (called  Sinodos)  being  added  to 
the  usual  twenty-seven. 

After  the  sixth  century  Abyssinia  was  almost  entirely 
lost  to  view  for  nearly  a  thousand  years — a  section  of 
Christendom  cut  off  from  the  main  body  of  the  Church  by 
the  intruding  Mohammedan  power.  For  a  long  time,  how- 
ever, it  contrived  to  get  its  metropolitan  from  Egypt, 
and  so  acknowledged  its  ecclesiastical  relationship  to  the 
Coptic  patriarchate  of  Alexandria.  The  canon  required 
twelve  bishops  for  the  consecration  of  a  metropolitan; 
but  there  were  only  seven  in  Abyssinia.  In  the  twelfth 
century  the  king  requested  that  more  might  be  appointed, 
and  the  Mohammedan  government  approved  of  the  request ; 
but  the  patriarch  Gabriel  refused  it — an  impolitic  action 
which  resulted  in  Abyssinia  taking   things   into   its   own 


G20  THE    r:RKEK    ANT)    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

hands  and  electing  its  own  metropolitan.  After  that, 
although  the  patriarchate  of  Alexandria  might  be 
nominally  allowed  to  extend  to  Abyssinia,  the  Abyssinians 
really  had  an  independent  Church. 

In  the  meantime  we  witness  the  sad  spectacle  of  the 
utter  vanishing  of  Christianity  from  Nubia,  where  once  it 
had  been  strong  and  flourishing.  For  many  years  this 
region  of  the  Soudan  had  existed  as  a  Christian  kingdom, 
which  refused  to  admit  the  Arab  suzerainty.  Ahmed,  the  son 
of  Solaim,  who  went  to  Nubia  as  an  ambassador  from  the 
Moslem  ruler,  tells  how  he  "  passed  through  nearly  thirty 
towns  with  fine  houses,  monasteries,  numberless  palm 
groves,  vineyards,  gardens  and  wide-spreading  fields, 
besides  herds  of  camels  of  great  beauty  and  breeding"^ 
Kartoum  was  then  adorned  with  magnificent  buildings 
and  great  houses.  Its  churches  were  enriched  with 
gold,  and  the  whole  city  was  beautified  with  gardens.^ 
The  King  of  Nubia  used  to  invite  the  bishops  to  join  his 
wise  men  in  discussing  with  him  the  affairs  of  the 
kingdom ;  in  fact,  he  had  a  sort  of  House  of  Lords, 
consisting  of  peers  temporal  and  spiritual.  Ahmed  him- 
self was  courteously  received  by  King  George,  who,  he 
says,  took  the  Moslems  with  him  in  a  procession  on  a 
festival  day.  But  in  course  of  time  this  happy  relation- 
ship, which  could  only  exist  so  long  as  the  Egyptian 
government  was  not  strong  enough  to  break  it  up,  came 
to  an  end.  The  King  of  Nubia  had  always  declined  to  admit 
the  suzerainty  of  the  sultan.  He  persistently  refused  the 
tribute  of  slaves  which  the  Mohammedan  power  demanded 
from  him.  When  that  power  was  sufficiently  established, 
it  punished  the  independence  of  Nubia  by  completely  over- 
running and  conquering  the  country  and  effectually  stamp- 
ing out  Christianity.  The  result  is  seen  to-day  in  the 
barbarous  Mohammedanism  of  the  tribes  of  the  Soudan, 
whose  ancestors  had  constituted  a  highly  civilised  Christian 
kingdom. 

Quatreiuere  in  Butcher,  Hist,  of  Church  in  Egypt,  vol.  ii.  p.  3. 
•  Ibid.  p.  4. 


ABYSSINIAN    CHRISTIANITY  621 

The  destruction  of  the  Christian  kingdom  of  Nubia 
was  the  chief  cause  of  the  isolation  of  Abyssinia  for  many 
centuries.  That  country  only  comes  to  light  again  in  the 
sixteenth  century,  owing  to  the  enterprising  spirit  of 
the  Portuguese.  It  would  have  been  infinitely  better  for 
the  unhappy  land  if  it  had  been  left  to  its  isolation  and 
obscurity.  The  Portuguese  brought  in  their  train  bigoted 
emissaries  of  the  Church  of  Eome,  who,  in  accordance  with 
the  custom  of  the  times,  resorted  to  violence  and  cruelty  in 
attempting  to  force  a  nation  that  they  regarded  as  heretical 
into  the  papal  mould.  But  the  first  interchange  of  com- 
munications was  civil  and  friendly.  Prince  Henry  of 
Portugal,  having  heard  semi-fabulous  tales  of  Prester  John 
in  a  mysterious  "  India,"  sent  two  ambassadors,  Pedro  de 
Corvilhaa  and  Alphonso  de  Payva,  to  the  Christian  sovereign 
of  Abyssinia.  Alphonso  died ;  but  Pedro  was  adopted 
by  the  Abyssinian  nation,  highly  honoured  by  the  king, 
and  married  into  a  high  Abyssinian  family.  Still  he  kept 
up  communications  with  Portugal.  Early  in  the  sixteenth 
century  the  Queen  Helena,  who  was  then  regent  for  her 
son,  a  child  of  eleven  years,  sent  Matthew,  an  Armenian 
merchant  of  ability  and  trustworthiness,  on  an  embassy  to 
the  King  of  Portugal,  asking  him  to  enter  into  an  alliance 
with  her  in  order  to  resist  the  Turks,  and  proposing  an 
intermarriage  between  the  two  royal  families.  Matthew 
went  first  to  Goa  in  India  and  thence  round  by  the  Cape 
to  Portugal,  encountering  many  difficulties  and  discourage- 
ments on  his  journey.  There  he  gained  his  end  so  far  as 
to  secure  a  Portuguese  embassy  to  return  with  him  to 
Abyssinia,  The  chaplain  of  this  embassy  was  Alvarez, 
who  has  left  us  a  graphic  account  of  his  own  experiences 
and  observations  concerning  the  country  and  people  to  which 
he  was  sent.  His  narrative  is  held  by  some  critics  not 
to  be  entirely  reliable ;  but,  after  making  allowance  for 
inaccuracies,  we  still  have  here  a  mass  of  information 
about  Abyssinia,  including  what  is  especially  valuable 
for  our  present  purposes,  light  on  the  practices  of  the 
Church.     Thus  at  length  the  curtain  is  raised,  and  again 


622  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHT7RCHES 

after  centuries  of  obscurity    we    are  able  to  contemplate 
Abvssinian  Christianity.^ 

Alvarez  bears  witness  to  the  lingering  of  Jewish 
customs  among  the  Abyssinians.  Thus  he  says  that  the 
monks  rest  for  eight  days  after  Easter — a  custom  which 
we  may  regard  as  parallel  to  the  passover  holiday ;  they 
partially  observe  the  Saturday  Sabbath,  and  they  con- 
tinued to  practise  circumcision ;  but  the  latter  custom,  we 
have  seen,  was  too  widespread  to  be  attributed  to  the 
influence  of  Judaism.  The  travellers  saw  a  great  number 
of  monasteries  and  churches.  Like  the  temple  of  Osiris 
at  Abu-Simbel,  some  of  the  churches  are  entirely  hewn  out 
of  the  rock.  One  of  these  is  as  large  as  a  cathedral,  with 
well-wrought  nave  and  aisles,  vaulted-shaped  roof,  and 
square  columns — all  cut  out  of  the  solid  rock.  The 
monastery  of  Bisa  has  six  other  monasteries,  each  with  a 
David  at  its  head  imder  the  presiding  Abba,  and  is  very 
rich.  It  is  said  to  number  3,000  monks,  but  Alvarez  only 
saw  300.  The  monasteries  are  generally  set  on  rocks  and 
hilltops  surrounded  by  woods.  The  churches  all  appear 
to  be  vaulted ;  but  they  have  straw  roofs.  There  is  only 
one  altar  in  each  church,  in  the  chancel.  Bells,  or  rather 
long,  thin  stone  clappers,  are  in  use.  The  ser\ices  are 
conducted  with  chanting  to  no  particular  tune.  There 
are  prayers  and  psalms  and  one  lesson,  all  shouted  rather 
than  intoned  or  merely  read.  The  mass  begins  with  a 
shout  of  Hallelujah,  and  concludes  with  a  procession 
of  four  or  five  crosses,  to  an  accompaniment  of  drums, 
cymbals,  and  incense,  carried  round  the  church  quite 
thirty  times.  "While  the  mass  is  proceeding,  lighted 
candles  are  held  up  by  those  round  the  officiating  priest. 
The  shouting  and  singing  are  taken  up  by  the  people  outside 
the  church  as  well  as  by  the  congiegation  within.  The 
communion  is  received  by  the  laity  as  well  as  by  the 
clergy    in    both     kinds,    the    communicants    after    receiv- 

^  See  Narrative  of  Portuguese  Emba,ssy  to  Abyssinia  inuring  the  Yean 
1520-1527.  by  Father  Francisco  Alvarez  (trans,  by  Lord  Stanley  of  Alderley, 
Hakluyt  Society). 


ABYSSINIAX    CHRISTIANITY  623 

ing  the  cup  washing  out  their  mouths  with  holy 
water  and  drinking  it.  Bread  is  blessed  and  dis- 
tributed at  all  the  monasteries  and  churches  on  the  Satur- 
day Sabbaths,  on  Sundays,  and  on  feast  days.  The 
monks  carry  crosses  before  them  when  they  walk  abroad, 
and  laymen  have  crosses  on  their  backs.  Alvarez  says  of 
the  monks,  "  being  thin  and  dry  like  wood,  they  appear  to 
be  men  of  a  holy  life.  .  .  .  The  clothes  which  they  wear 
are  old  yellow  cotton  stuffs,  and  they  go  barefooted."  ^ 
The  practice  of  polygamy,  though  not  frequent,  and  though 
condemned  by  the  Church  to  the  extent  of  exclusion 
from  the  communion,  was  not  otherwise  prohibited.  At 
one  place,  Barua,  Alvarez  found  men  with  two  and  even 
with  three  wives.  Here  were  two  churches,  that  of 
St.  Michael  for  men,  and  that  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul 
for  women.  The  same  priests  ministered  to  both  churches. 
As  in  the  East  generally,  the  priests  were  not  celibate,  but 
if  a  priest  lost  his  wife  he  might  not  marry  a  second  time. 
The  priesthood  was  maiuly  recruited  from  the  families  of 
the  priests,  who  thus  became  virtually  a  caste.  There 
were  no  schools  or  masters  to  prepare  the  candidates  for 
orders,  and  the  clergy  taught  the  little  that  they  knew 
themselves  to  their  sons.^ 

At  this  time  the  Abyssiuians  were  engaged  in  wars 
with  the  Turks,  who  invaded  their  country  slaughtering 
many  people,  and  destroying  churches  and  monasteries. 
Ultimately  the  Portuguese  came  to  the  assistance  of  their 
fellow-Christians ;  but  it  was  long  before  the  Turkish 
intrusion  was  effectually  repelled.  Then  troubles  broke 
out  between  the  two  Churches  that  were  now  represented 
in  the  country.  King  David  prevailed  on  the  cathohcos 
of  Abyssinia,  Abuna  Mark,  who  had  become  too  old  and  infirm 
to  administer  the  affairs  of  the  Church,  to  consecrate  a 
Portuguese,  Joao  Bermudez,  in  his  place.  In  this  way  the 
Eoman  Catholicism,  to  which  the  king  was  favourable,  was 
represented  in  the  head  of  Abyssinian  Christianity.  But 
this  did  not  result  in  the  surrender  of  the  national  Church 
1  Ibid.  p.  16.  «  Ibid.  p.  57. 


624  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN    CHURCHES 

to  the  papacy.  The  pope  made  an  attempt  to  secure  that 
result  through  the  Coptic  patriarch  of  Alexandria.  But 
this  too  failed.  In  the  year  1600,  an  able  Jesuit,  Pedro 
I'iaz,  came  as  a  Eoman  missionary  to  Abyssinia.  A  few 
years  later  the  King  Socinios  embraced  the  Catholic  faith 
of  the  Two  Natures  after  a  public  disputation  on  the 
subject  in  his  presence.  This  was  the  first  step  towards 
submission  to  Eome.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Abuna  Simon 
published  a  sentence  of  excommunication  against  all  who 
affirmed  that  there  were  two  natures  in  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  Thus  the  old  Monophysite  quarrel  that  had 
slumbered  for  centuries  was  rekindled  in  Abyssinia  with 
regard  to  the  ecclesiastical  question  of  the  supremacy  of 
the  pope.  This  led  to  civil  war,  in  which  the  Abuna  was 
killed — it  is  said  screaming  curses  against  his  sovereign. 
The  king  issued  a  manifesto  denouncing  both  the  heretical 
tenets  and  the  corrupt  morals  of  his  national  Church. 
When  the  news  of  his  submission  to  Eome  reached  Lisbon, 
AJphonso  Menez  was  there  consecrated  patriarch  of 
Ethiopia.  He  was  welcomed  by  Socinios  in  February 
1626.  The  king  then  issued  a  proclamation  commanding 
submission  to  the  Eoman  Catholic  faith  on  pain  of  death. 
Churches  were  reconsecrated,  clergy  re- ordained,  converts 
re-baptised,  and  the  abolition  of  circumcision  and  polygamy 
commanded.  Again  there  was  rebellion,  followed  by  dis- 
order and  bloodshed.  But  when  resigning  his  throne  to 
his  son,  Socinios  issued  a  proclamatioL  tolerating  both  the 
ancient  and  the  new  faiths.^ 

The  most  complete  English  account  of  the  history  of 
Abyssinia  is  to  be  found  in  Bruce's  five  fine  quarto  volumes 
on  his  travels  in  search  of  the  sources  of  the  Nile.  From  his 
own  observation  he  is  able  to  give  us  a  detailed  description  of 
the  covmtry  in  the  eighteenth  century.  "  There  is  no  country 
in  the  world,"  he  says,  "  where  there  are  so  many  churches 
as  Abyssinia  " ;  ^  and  he  adds  that  every  great  man  who 
dies  thinks  to  atone  for  his  misdeeds  by  building  a  church. 

^  See  Bruce,  Travels,  vol.  ii.  pp.  265  If. 

*  Hid.  vol.  iii.  p.  313. 


ABYSSINIAN    CHRISTIANITY  625 

The  king  builds  many.  The  churches  are  near  running 
water  for  the  sake  of  rites  of  puiification,  and  they  are 
planted  round  with  trees,  so  that  "  there  is  nothing  adds 
so  much  to  the  beauty  of  the  country  as  these  churches 
and  the  plantations  about  them."  ^  They  have  thatched 
roofs,  and  they  are  surrounded  by  colonnades,  the  pillars  con- 
sisting of  trunks  of  cedar  trees.  In  form  they  are  round, 
and  in  the  circular  interior  is  a  railed-off  square,  within 
which  is  a  "  holy  of  holies,"  only  entered  by  the  priests. 
The  monks,  according  to  Bruce,  do  not  live  in  convents, 
but  they  occupy  separate  houses  grouped  round  the 
churches.  Bruce  gives  us  little  information  as  to  the 
internal  hfe  of  the  Church  in  Abyssinia ;  but  he  mentions 
a  priest  who  told  him  he  never  believed  that  the  elements 
in  the  Eucharist  were  converted  by  consecration  into  the 
real  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  This  priest  thought  that  to 
be  the  Roman  Catholic  faith  in  contradistinction  to  the  tenets 
of  his  owTi  Church.2  In  the  Abyssinian  Church,  pictures, 
but  not  statues,  are  used  as  in  other  Eastern  Churches. 
Many  saints  are  venerated,  and  in  some  cases  worshipped 
with  extravagant  adoration. 

In  more  recent  years  the  country  has  been  distracted 
by  tribal  wars  and  the  contentions  of  rival  claimants  to 
the  supreme  power  claimed  by  the  Negus  Negasti  (king  of 
kings),  but  only  exercised  by  the  stronger  and  more 
masterful  of  these  suzeram  lords.  In  the  year  1829, 
missionaries  went  out  from  the  English  Church  Missionary 
Society  and  were  well  received.  Other  missionaries  followed, 
but,  owing  to  the  opposition  of  the  priests,  they  were  all 
obliged  to  leave  the  country  in  less  than  ten  years. 

Still,  the  prospect  is  not  unhopeful.  English  and  Ameri- 
can missionary  and  educational  work  is  spreading  over 
Egypt  and  extending  up  the  Valley  of  the  Nile  through 
Nubia.  In  course  of  time  this  may  be  expected  to  penetrate 
the  Soudan  till  it  joins  hands  with  other  missionary  efforts 
in  the  interior  of  Africa.  Then  Abyssinia  wiU  be  in  closer 
touch  with    the    modern  movement,   which   is   part  of    a 

1  Bruce,  Travels,  vol.  iii.  p.  314.  ^  im^  p,  339. 

40 


626  THE    GREEK    AND    EASTERN   CHURCHES 

general  endeavour  to  extend  spiritual  and  intelligent 
Christianity.  If  this  continues  and  is  enlarged  and 
becomes  fruitful,  we  may  yet  hope  to  see  the  peoples 
of  the  ancient  seats  of  Christianity  reawakened  and 
perhaps  even  enjoying  some  return  of  the  vitality  of  their 
Famous  past 


INDEX 


AVba  SaZama,  618. 

Abda,  344. 

Abgar,  295,  462  ff. 

Abraham,  Mmt,  489. 

Abu  Bekr,  164  ff. 

Abyssinia,  296,  615  flf. 

Acacians,  70. 

Acephali,  113,  567. 

Accevuti,  213. 

Adamantius  Korais,  331. 

Addai,  Doctrine  of,  461. 

Adoptionism,  218. 

.ffidesius,  617. 

Agallianos,  195. 

Aggai,  463. 

Albigenses,  228. 

Alexander  of  Alexandria,  42  ff. 

Alexander  i..  Tsar,  436. 

,,         II.,  Tsar,  438  tf. 
Alexandria,  58  fl".,  87,  577  tf. 
Alexis,  413  ff. 
Alexius,  247. 
Alexius  Angelus,  253. 
Alvarez,  621. 
Am])hilocluus,  280. 
Amphilochius  of  Side,  107. 
Anchoritism,  148. 
Anna  Comnenus,  281. 
Anne  of  Russia,  434. 
Anomoeans,  70. 
Anthony,  St.,  154. 
Anthropomorphists,  90. 
Antichrist,  444. 
Antioch,  14,  89. 
Aphraates,  Homilies,  470,  482. 
Apollinarians,  79,  82,  110,  127. 
Apostles,     traditional    spheres, 

note  2. 
Apostolical  constitutions,  53,149, 
Arabia,  166  ff. 
Arcadius,  88. 

Architecture,  Byzantine,  175  ff. 
„  Saracenic,  587. 


16, 
179. 


Ariadne,  110. 

Arianism,  41  ff.,  58  ff.,  68,  307,  561. 

Armenia,  217,  296. 

Armenian  Church,  297,  540  flf. 

,,         Massacres,  551. 

,,         Versions,  542  f. 
Arsenius,  261,  324. 
Art,  Byzantine,  174  fif. 

„    Gothic,  177  ti'. 
Artavasdos,  198. 
Asceticism,  148. 
Asceticus,  491. 
Atalla,  529. 
Athanaric,  302. 
Athanasius,  45  ff.,  618. 

,,  Canons  of,  133. 

„  Coptic  patriarch,  614. 

„  Mar,  532. 

,,  of  Constantinople,  264  f. 

Athenagoras,  21,  284. 
Athc.s,  Mount,  286  ff.,  334. 
Augustus,  9. 
Aurelian,  178. 
Auxentius,  304. 
Awgin,  485. 

Axuraitric  kingdom.     Se^  Abyssinia. 
Azyraites,  269. 

Babylon  in  Egypt,  535, 
Bagdad,  170. 
Bakar,  344. 

Baldwin,  250,  254,  258. 
Bar  Cochbar,  21. 
Bardaisan,  466  ff. 
Bardas,  Caesar,  234. 
Barlaam  and  Josaphat,  282  ff. 
Barnabas,  Epidle  of,  7. 
Bar  Salibi,  508. 
Basil,  71  ff.,  158,  ?i4, 
Basil  I.,  Emperor,  223. 
Basilicas,  181  ff. 
Basiliscus,  108  ff. 
Basilius  the  Paulician,  227 


627 


628 


INDEX 


Beard,  the  image  of  God,  445. 

Bef-popoflsky,  447. 

Beuediction,   Position  of  fingers   in, 

416. 
Beiijaiiiiti,  Coptic  patriarch,  575. 
Berlin,  Treaty  of,  351. 
Bernard  of  Clairvaux,  251. 

,,       of  Tarsus,  257  f. 
Beth'Abhe,  486. 
Bible  in  Greek  vernacular,  329. 
Bible  Society,  338. 
Bielo-ozero  monastery,  382. 
Bishops,    privileges    and    duties   ef. 

135. 
Bogislav,  Stephen,  351. 
Bogomiles,  225  tf. 
Boheniond,  249. 
Book  of  Governors.  484  flf. 
Boris  Godunov,  379. 
Bosnia,  353. 
Britain,  13. 
Bruce's  travels,  624. 
Bryennios,  342. 
Bulgaria,  348  fif. 
Bulgarian  atrocities,  350. 
Burkitt,  468. 
Bury,  193. 
Byzantine  Empire,  Fall  of,  256  ff. 

,,         forces  defeated,  169. 

Cabasilas,  281. 
Caliphate,  170,  585  flf. 
Calvinism,  319. 
Camel,  Sultan,  254. 
Canons  of  Chalcedon,  135. 

,,      Sardican,  134. 
Cantacuzenus,  265. 
Cappadocians,  the,  71  ff. 
Capuchins  at  Astrakan,  430. 
Carbeas,  222. 
Caroline  Books,  240. 
Cassian,  148. 
Catherine  the  Great,  434. 
Celestius,  96. 
Censer  confession,  60&, 
Ceylon,  527. 
Cbail  I.,  591. 

,,     II.,  593. 

,,     III.,  596. 

„      IV.,  604. 
Chalcedon,  Canons,  135. 

,,  Council;  99  flf. 

Chaldaea,  167. 
Chalda^ans,  497  ff. 
Charles  the  Great,  233,  294, 
Chenouda  i.,  594. 
II.,  601. 
China,  527,  533  flf. 
Chosroes,  17a. 


Christ,  Body  of,  120. 
,,       Byzantine,  105. 
,,      Divinity  of,  54,  105,  503  flf. 
,,      Nature"    of,       93    ff.,      101, 
503  ff. 
Christianity     outside    the     Empire, 

294  flf. 
Christobulus,  602. 
Chris^^^ological    controversies,    Liiter. 

117  ff. 
Chrysanthus,  324. 
Chrysocheir,  223. 
Chrysostom,  83  tf. 
Church  organisation,  132  ff. 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  7. 
Cochin,  538. 
Codex  Argenteus,  307. 
,,      Carolinus,  307. 
Cosnobitism,  148. 
Commodus.  22. 
Communion  ofBce,  277. 
Confe>sioiia!,  606. 
Constaiitinethe  Great,  10,  27  ff. 
IV.,  129. 
,,  v.,  "Copronicus,"197  tf. , 

341. 
,,  VI.,  Porphvrogenitus, 

202,  212.' 
,,  of  Nacolia,  192. 

Pognatus,  130. 
Constantinople,  founded,  29,  137. 

,,  Disturbances  at,  114. 

„  captured    by  Latins, 

253. 
,,  recovered  by  Palseolo- 

gus,  260. 
taken  by  Turks,  270  ff. 
,,  I.  Council,  82  tf. 

II.      Council,       119, 
157. 
,,  III.  Council,  125. 

,,  Creed  of,  83. 

,,  Patriarchate,    137  ff., 

336. 
,,  Prerogatives  of,  137. 

Con.stantius,  59  ff.,  305. 
Conybeare,  152,  216. 
Coonen  cro.ss,  530. 
Copts,  93,  138,  172,  293,  553  ff. 
Corinth  pillaged,  329. 
Cosmas,  518. 
Cosnias  the  Student,  586. 
Council,    (Ecumenical,    1st,    Nicaea, 
50  ff. 
,,  2nd,  Constantinople. 

82  ff.,  137. 
,,  3rd,  Ephesus,  96  ff. 

„  4th,Chalcedon,99tf., 

543  fif.,  565  ff. 


INDEX 


620 


Council,  QiouTTienical,  .'th.   II.  Con- 
stantinople, 119  f. 
„  6th,   III.   Constanti- 

nople, no  f.,  569. 
„  7th,   II.  Nicsea,  192, 

204. 
8th,  237. 
Creed,  Apostles',  53. 
,,      Nicene,  53,  83. 
,,      of  Constantinople,  83. 
Crimea,  303. 

Crosses  at  Travancore,  518  ff. 
Crusades,  242 ff.,  609. 
Crusius,  Martin,  314. 
Cydonius,  Demetrius,  282. 
Cyprus,  Church  of,  339  ff. 
Cyril  Lucar,  309 ff.,  411,  611. 
,,     of  Alexandria,  96  ff. 
,,     of  Jerusalem,  83. 
,,     of  Kiev,  386. 
„     of  Phasis,  125  ff. 
Gyrus,  Melchite  patriarch,  575. 

Dacia,  302. 

Dagobert,  251,  258. 

Dalmatia,  329. 

Damascus,  169,  329. 

Dandolo,  252,  291. 

Danielthe  Stylite,  111. 

Decius,  24. 

Be  Fide  Orthodoxa,  210. 

Demetrius,  deacon,  313. 

Diabekir,  498. 

Diatessaron,  The,  465  f. 

DidacM,  The,  16. 

Diocletian,  25  ff. 

Dionysius      the     Areopagite,      126, 

215. 
Dioscurus,  98,  104. 
Dmitri,  409. 
Doeetism,  120. 
"Doctor,  CEcumenical,"  195. 
Doniitian,  19. 
Doukhobors,  The,  451  ff. 

Ecthesis,  the,  129.  569,  576. 
Kgypt,  87,  99,  137,  552  ff. 

,,      Modern,  610  ff. 

,,      Mohammedan  rule  in,  577  ff. 

,,      Monophysite,  117,  565  ff. 

,,      Persian  conquest,  572  ff. 

,,      Turkish  period,  603  ff. 
El  Aziz,  599. 
El  Hakim,  244,  600. 
Elizabeth  of  Russia,  434. 
Eneratites,  466. 
Ephraim  the  Syrian,  473  f. 
Epiphanius,  83,  341. 
Ermanario,  302. 


Etbioj.ia,  297,  616ff. 
Ethiopia  Canon,  619. 
ICucarpus,  157. 
Kuoharist,  141  ff. 
Kiichites,  225,  490  ff. 
Eudoxia,  428. 
Eugene,  Prince,  329. 
Kugenios,  Bulgares,  331. 
Eugenius,  Pope,  265. 
Eiisebius  of  Csesarea,  50,  53. 

,,        of  Nicomedia,  46. 
Eustathians,  492. 
Eustathius,  281. 
Euthymius,  225. 
Eutyches,  97  ff.,  103,  562. 
Eutychianism,    94,    102,    479,    546, 

563. 
Evangelion  da  Mepharresche,  470. 
Extension  of  Christianity,  13  ff.,  25  f. 

Fausta,  murder  of,  34. 

Figuratists,  81. 

Fllioque  clause,  237  ff.,  266,  294. 

Firuz,  481. 

Flavian  of  Antioch,  89. 

,,       of  Constantinojile,  98  ff. 
Frithigem,  302  f. 
Fnimentius,  516. 
Fulco  of  Neuilly,  252. 
Fustat,  581. 

Gabriel,  Mar,  531, 
Galerius,  25. 
Gallus,  24. 
Gangra,  100. 
Garamaea,  297. 
Gaul,  13. 
Gegnoesius,  220. 
Genghis  Khan,  269. 
Gennadius,  269,  282. 
George  of  Cappadocia,  62. 

,,      Scholarius.     See  Gennadius. 
Georgia,  Church  of,  344  ff. 
Gerasimus,  389. 
Germanus.  192  ff. 
Goa,  525  ff. 

Godfrey  of  Bouillon,  249. 
Golitsin,  Basil,  420. 
Goths,  122,  301  ff. 
(iratian,  85. 

"Great  Mother,"  The,  10. 
Greek    Church,   outlving    branches, 
369  ff. 
under  Turks,  325  ff. 
Gregorius,  Jacobite  patriarch,  530. 
Gregory  Nazianzen,  75  ff. 

„       of  Nyssa,  78  ff.,  93,  143  ff. 

„       the  Great,  140  ff. 

,,       III.,  197. 


630 


INDEX 


Gregory  vii.,  HiMebrand,  248,  362. 

,,       IX.,  254. 

,,       the  Illuminator,  297,  540  ff. 
Gundaphorus,  King,  511. 
Gwatkin,  Professor,  43. 

Hackett,  339  flf. 
Hadrian,  Emperor,  20. 

,,       Pope,  203. 
Harith,  502. 
Harnack,  43. 
Harris,  Rendel,  474, 
Heber,  Bishop,  531. 
Hebrews,  Oospel,  296,  471,  513. 
Henoticon,  112,  117,  567. 
Heraclius,  125  flF.,  137,  573,  577. 
Herzegovina,  353. 
Hesychasts,  288. 
Hieracles,  .565. 
Hillary  of  Poitiers,  241. 
Holy  Synod,  Greek,  336. 

, ,  Russian,  425  ff. 

Homeritae,  516. 
Homoeans,  70,  305. 
JSomoiousios,  68  f. 
Homoousios,  52,  75. 
Honorius,  Emperor,  88. 

Pope,  128. 
Hosius,  2,  49,  50. 
Hugh  of  Vermandois,  249. 
Huns,  106,  223. 
Hymns,  Greek,  283  ff. 
Hypostasis,  74. 

Ibas,  118,  567. 
Iberians.     See  Georgia. 
Ibn  Tulun,  594. 
Iconoclastic  reforms,  187  ff. 
Ignatius  of  Antioch,  20  ff. 

„        Patriarch,  209,  234. 
Image  worship.  Restoration  of,  201  ff. 
Incarnation,  105. 
India,  512  ff. 
Innocent  in.,  252,  287. 
Irene  the  Athenian,  203  ff. 
Isaac,  Emperor,  253. 
Isho-yahbh,  489. 
Isidore,  389  ff. 
Isyaslaff,  372. 

Jacob  al  Bardai,  500  ff.,  568. 

,,     of  Edessa,  507  ff. 
Jacobites,  93,  172,  500  ff. 
James  of  Nisibis,  300. 
Janissaries,  310  ff. 
Jassy,  412. 
Jerome,  148. 

Jerusalem,  Kingdom  of,  251  ff. 
Jesu-Jabus,  494. 


.Tflsuits,  430,  533,  624. 
Job,  Patriarch,  406. 
John,  Catanierus,  258. 

,,     Chrysostom,  89  ff. 

,,     Chrysostom,  Liturgy,  276. 

,,     Maracumensis,  545. 

,,     Moschus,  585. 

„     v.,  Pope,  265, 

,,     of  Antioch,  257. 

„     of  Asia,  or  Ephesus,  503,  506  f. 

„     of  Damascus,  211,  284. 

,,     of  Persia,  49,  516. 

,,     Prester,  535  ff.,  621, 

,,     Semuudseus,  588, 

,,     Talai,  570. 

,,     the  Almoner,  574. 

,,     the  Faster,  140. 

,,     the  Grammarian,  207  ff. 
Jordanus,  521. 
Joseph,  Patriarch,  262,  266. 
Jovian,  Emperor,  65. 
Julian,  Emperor,  61  ff. 

,,       of  Halicarnassus,  120,  568. 
"Jumpers,"  The,  499  ff. 
Justin,  Emperor,  117. 
Justinian,  Emperor,  117 ff,,  139,  181, 
Justinian  ii.,  220,  341. 

Kalmata,  Thanksgiving,  332. 
Kenosis,  97,  103. 
Key  of  Truth,  216  ff. 
Khalid,  164,  168. 
Kiev,  358,  364. 
Klysty,  The,  450. 
Kufa,  171, 
KuUman,  452, 

Labarum,  The,  10,  35  f.,  65. 

Laplanders,  383. 

Latin  Empire  at  Constantinople,  254. 

Latrocinialis.   Sec  '  'Robber  Council. " 

Law,  Roman,  29,  123. 

Layard,  496. 

Lazarus,  the  Painter,  208. 

Learning  and  literature,  279. 

Legislation,    Effect    of   Christianity 

on,  40. 
Leo  I.,  Emperor,  107. 

,,   II.,  Emperor,  110. 

,,   III,,     Emperor,     the     Isaurian, 
189  ff, 

,,   IV,,  the  Armenian,  204  ff, 

„   I.,  Pope,  99  ff.,  Ill,  234, 

,,    III.,  Pope,  294. 

,,   IX.,  Pope,  240. 

,,  Stypiota,  Patriarch,  228. 
Libauius,  72. 
Licinius,  34. 
Lithuania,  373,  388. 


INDEX 


681 


Liturgies,  276. 

Logos,  The,  7. 

Lombards,  233. 

Louis  IX.  (Saint),  255  ff.,  609. 

Loyola,  Ignatius,  525. 

Lutheranism,  313. 

Macarius,  157. 

,,        Monastery,  609. 
Macedonia,  82,  351. 
Macedonius,  82. 
Maghlobeen,  499. 
Magi,  299  ff. 
Malabar,  532. 
Malacca,  527. 
Mamelukes,  611  ff. 
Manuel,  251,  274. 
Marcellus,  43,  82. 
Mareian,  99,  106. 
Marciou,  149. 
Marco  Polo,  520  ff. 
Marcus  Aurelius,  11,  21. 
Mariolatry,  195. 
Maris,  119. 
Mark,  St.,  15,  554. 

„      Coptic  patriarch,  593. 

„      of  Ephesus,  268. 

„     Son  of  Kunbar,  606. 
Maronites,  131. 
Martin,  130,  264. 
Mary,  The  Virgin,  96,  105. 
Maxentius,  33  f. 
Maximus,  130. 
Melchitaristes,  547. 
Meletius  of  Antioch,  82. 

„       ofPega,  314. 
Mennas,  123. 
MfnologiuTn,  The,  429. 
Mentaxa,  Nicodemus,  318. 
Mesrob,  542. 
Messenia,  Senate  of,  332. 
Methodius,  358. 
Metrophanes,  612. 
Metropolitans,  135  f. 
Michael  i.,  206. 

„       II.,  the  Stammerer,  208. 

,,       III.,  the  Drunkard,  209. 

,,       Antorianus,  258  ff. 

,,       Cerularius,  240. 

,,      the  Syrian,  364. 

„       Tsar,  410. 
Milan,  Edict  of,  36  f. 
Milvian  Bridge,  33. 
JUirabih'a,  522. 

Missionary  Society,  Church,  531. 
Mithra,  10,  87. 
Mobidakh,  345. 
Mcesia  Superior,  851. 
Mogila,  Peter,  322,  411. 


Mohammed,  162  ff. 

ii.,270ff. 

Mohammedan   conditions  for  Chris- 
tians, 583. 

Mohammedanism,  93,  160. 

Molokans,  The,  451  ff. 

Monasticism,  147  ff.,  619. 

Mouastir,  351. 

Mongolian  invasion,  371  ff. 

Monophysites,    102 ff.,    120  ff.,    293, 
500  ff.,  544,  565  ff. 

Monothelete  controversy,  124ff.,568ff. 

Montanists,  22,  118,  149. 

Montenegro,  348. 

Montferrat,  Marquis  of,  253. 

Morea,  326,  332  ff. 

Morosini,  254,  328. 

Moscow  Patriarchate,  404  ff. 

Mtykhetha,  345. 

Muir,  SirW.,  163. 

"Mukaukas,"The,  578  ff. 

Mutilation,  290. 

Najran,  171. 

Napoleon,  Image  of,  448. 
Neale,  115. 
Nectarius,  90. 
Neo-Platonists,  117. 
Nestor,  356,  576. 
Nestorianism,  94,  102. 

„  in  Far  East,  510  ff. 

„  in  India,  517  ff. 

,,  in  Persia,  480. 

„  Later,  493  ff. 

,,  Syrian,  476,  567. 

Nicffia,  50 ff.,  192,  204. 
Nicephorus,  Csesar,  203  ff. 
,,  Emperor,  205. 

,,  historian,  204. 

Nicholas,  Pope,  209,  235. 
Tsar,  438. 
,,        of  Methone,  281. 
Nicolo  Barbaro,  270. 
Nicomedia,  28. 
Nicou,  413  ff. 
Niobites,  503. 
Niphont,  373  ff. 
Nonjurors,  324, 
Nonna,  344. 
Norseses,  542. 

Novgorod  Metropolitan,  406. 
Nubia,  620. 
Nunia,  297. 

"  (Ecumenical  Bishop,"  233  ff. 

,,  Council.   See  CounoU. 

"  Old  Believers,"  443. 
Olga,  Princess,  358  ff. 
Olopan,  533. 


W^ 


082 


INDEX 


( )mar,  164  ff. 
Oiigeuism,  7,  83,  90. 
Osrhoene,  461,  479. 
Oxyrhynchus  f)apyri,  6. 

rachomius,  156,  485. 
I'aganisni,  Suppression  of,  62. 
Pahlavi,  518. 

Palaeologus,  254,  259,  612. 
Palladius,  145,  153. 
Palut,  463. 
Palutians,  469. 
Pantsenus,  296,  513. 
Parthenon  shattered,  328. 
Parthia,  296,  512. 
Paschal  Controversy,  54. 
Passarovitz,  Treaty  of,  329. 
Patriarchate,  The,  137  ff. 
Paul  of  Alexandria,  130. 

,,    ofSamosata,  52. 

,,    the  Armenian,  220. 
Paulicians,  207,  216  ff. 
Pechersky  Monastery,  411. 
"Peculiars,"  The,  399. 
Persia,  97,  122,  293. 

,,      origin    of     Christianity    in, 
297  ff. 
Persian  Christians,  102,  480  ff. 
Peshitta,  476,  498,  505. 
Peter  Mongus,  113. 

„     the  Fuller,  109  f.,  341. 

,,     the  Great,  324,  420  ff, 

,,     the  Hermit,  248  f. 
Petronas,  222. 
Phanariots,  325  ff. 
Philaret  Romanoff,  409. 
Philike  Hetairia,  332. 
Philippoftsky,  The,  448. 
Philippopolis,  224. 
Philippus,  131. 
Philo,  7. 

Phocas  Nicephorus,  342. 
Photinus,  43,  82. 

Photius  of  Constantinople,  209,235  ff., 
279  f. 
,,       the  Russian,  437. 
Pictures,  184. 
Pilgrimages,  433. 
Pirates,  328. 

Pliny's  correspondence,  19  f.,  284. 
Pobiedonostsef,  439. 
Polycarp,  439. 
Fomortsky,  The,  449. 
Pontus,  99. 

Pope,  Village,  431,  435. 
Popoftsky,  The,  446. 
Portuguese  in  India,  523  ff. 

,,         in  Abyssinia,  621. 
Presbyters,  558  ff. 


Proclus,  281. 
Procopius,  117. 
Procurator,  High,  425. 
Proterius,  106  ff. 
Protestantism,  318. 
Psellu.s,  Micliael,  2S0. 
Ptolemais,  97. 
Pulcheria,  99. 
PuUcni,  251. 
Pyrrhus,  129. 

Rabbulas,  475,  478. 
Ramsay,  Professor,  17. 
Raskolniks,  441  If. 
Ravenna,  Exarch  of,  232. 
Relics,  278. 
Richard  I.,  252. 
"Robber  Council,"  99,  543. 
Robert,  Count  of  Flanders,  245. 

,,      of  Normandy,  249. 
Romanus,  Diogenes,  244. 
Runners,  449. 
Rnrik,  358. 

Russia,  chani])ion  of  Eastern  Chris- 
tianity, 329. 

,,       church   lands  appropriated, 
434. 

,,       dioceses,  366. 

„       Little,  417. 

,,       modem,  434  ff. 

,,       Mongolian  invasion,  371  ff. 

,,       name  and  people,  356. 

,,       negotiations  for  union,  385. 

,,       Origin    of    Christianity    in, 
355  ff. 

,,       possessions  in  Armenia,  549. 

,,       protection  of  Georgia,  347. 
Revival  of,  385  ff. 

,,       Western  culture  in,  421. 
Russian  calendar,  424. 

,,       sects,  441  ff. 
Russkdya  Pravada,  367,  398. 

Sabellianism,  42,  74. 
Saccudio,  212. 
Sacraments,  142,  274  f. 
i  Sacrificing,  Laws  against,  86. 
Said,  597. 
Saladin,  252,  608. 
San  Stephano,  Treaty  of,  351. 
Sajior,  299  ff. 
Saracens,  223. 

Sardica,  Council  of,  60,  344  f. 
Satanael,  226. 
Schism,  The  great,  229  ff. 
Scholarship  in  Greece,  337. 
Scythia,  357. 
Sects,  Russian,  441  ff. 
Seljuk,  244. 


INDEX 


63:^ 


Semi-Arians,  65,  68flF. 

Senuti,  r>64  tf. 

Separation,  Causes  of,  291  AT. 
Serapeum,  87. 
Seraphim,  437. 
Serapion,  463. 
Serenus  of  Marseilles,  191. 
Serfs,  Emancipation  of,  438. 
Sergius    of    Constantinople,    125  ff., 
167. 

,,        the  Paulician,  221. 
Servia,  351  ff. 
Severus  of  Antioch,  115. 
Siberia,  411. 
Silentium,  196. 
Silvanus,  the  Paulician,  219. 
Simeon  of  Thessalonica,  282. 

,,      theStylite,  155  f. 
Simony,  597.  609  if. 
Singanfu  tablet,  534  f. 
Skojisiy,  The,  451. 
Skreejal,  The,  417. 
Slmjrbuik,  The,  417. 
Societies  for  Biblical  Study,  337  f. 
, ,       for  Circulation  of  Scriptures, 
338. 
Solovetsky  Monastery,  383. 
Sophia,  St.,  181  ff. 
Sophronius,  126,  170,  585. 
Soudan,  The,  620. 
Spiritual  Pastures,  585. 
Stanley,  Dean,  174. 
Staru-Obriadsti.     See  Raskolniks. 

,,    -viery.     ^Jec  Raskolniks. 
Stephen  of  Chartres,  249. 
of  Dore,  128. 
,,       the  younger,  199. 
Stoglat,  The,  399. 
Streltsi,  Revolt  of,  423. 
Stadium,  212. 
Stundists,  456  ff. 
Stylites,  153. 
Sudebuik,  The,  398. 
Symmachus,  87. 
Synod,  Lateran,  130,  143. 

,,     of  Aix  la  Chapelle,  82. 

,,      of  Antioch,  240. 

,,      of  Babaeus,  482. 

„      of  Basle,  266. 

„      of  Bethlehem,  321. 

,,      of  Carana,  545. 

,,      of  Clermont,  248. 

„      uf  Constantinople,    82,     119, 
198. 

„      of  Diamper,  519,  529. 

„     of     Florence,      266  ff.,      390, 
611. 

„      of  Jassy,  321,  412. 

„     of  Manaschiertuni,  546. 


Sy7iod  of  Moscow,  406. 

of  Philippopolis,  60. 

of  Rimini,  82. 

of  Sardica,  60,  344  ff. 

of  Sirmium,  82. 

of  tlu;  Oak,  91. 

of  Tiben,  544. 

of  Toledo,  239. 

of  Tyre,  239. 

the  Holy,  419  ff. 
Syria,  99. 
Syrian  Christianity,  459  ff. 

,,      Christianity    in    India,    297. 
517  ff. 
Syropulus,  266. 

"Tall  Brothers,"  91. 
Tancred,  249. 
Tarasius,  203. 
Tartary,  535. 
Tatian,  149,  464. 
Thaddseus,  293. 
Theocristus,  285. 
Theodora,  118  ff.,  500. 
Theodore  Graptus,  209. 

,,        of    Mopsuestia,     94,     118 

479. 
„        of  Studium,  209  ff. 
Theodoret,  118,  567. 
Theodoric,  307. 
Theodosians,  449. 
Theodosius  the  Great,  77,  85. 

II.,  96. 
Theodota,  205. 
Theodotus  Mellisenus,  208. 
Theophanes,  196,  279,  284. 
Theophilus  and  the  Goths,  304. 

,,  Arian,  618. 

,,         of  Alexandria,  91. 

,,  of  Scythia,  49. 

,,         the  Indian,  516. 
Theophylact,  281. 
"Theotokos,"  The,  10,  96,  105. 
Therapeutae,  152. 
Thomas,  295. 

Acts    of,     297,    474,    511 

540  ff. 
of  Marga,  484  ff. 
Thouraki,  217. 
"Three  Chapters,"  118,  567. 
Tiben,  545. 
Timothy  .^Elurus,  106 ff.,  566. 

,,        Salofaciolus,  108,  566. 
Timour,  269. 
Togrul,  244. 
Tolstoi,  Count,  458. 
"Tome,"  Leo's,  100 f.,  112,  232. 
Tonsure,  Deathbed,  370. 
Travancore,  515  ff. 


634 


INDEX 


Trebuil;  411. 

Trinity,  68,  74,  110,  274,  504. 

Trisagion,  The,  110,  114. 

Tritheitee,  504, 

Turks,  244  fiF. 

Type,  The,  129,  569. 

Ulfilas,  301  ff. 

Uniats,  315,  408. 

Union,    Efforts   towards,    263, 

268  f.,    407,    528  ff.,    544, 

624. 
"Universal  Bishop,"  141. 

Valens,  66  f.,  85. 
Yalentinian,  66. 


265, 
611, 


Veccus,  263. 

Venetian  conquests,  820. 

Vladimir,  359  ff. 

Wade,  Archbishop,  324. 

Xavier,  Francis,  525  ff. 

Yasolaf,  367. 
Yucab,  593. 

Zaras,  252, 
Zeno,  108,  341. 
Zoe,  290. 

Zoroastrianism,  10. 
Zosimus,  Metropolitan,  398. 


The  International  Theological  Library 


VOLUMES  NOW  READY 

An  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment.    By  Professor  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt. 

"As  a  whole  there  is  probably  no  book  in  the  English  Language  equal 
to  this  'Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,'  for  the 
student  who  desires  to  understand  what  the  modern  criticism  thinks 
about  the  Bible." — Dr.  Lyman  Abbott,  in  The  Outlook. 

Crown  8vo.     $2.50  net. 

A    History    of    Christianity  in    the  Apostolic  Age. 

By  Arthxtr  C.  McGipfert,  Ph.D.,  D.D. 

"  The  clearness,  self-consistency,  and  force  of  the  whole  impression  of 
Apostolic  Christianity  with  which  we  leave  this  book  goes  far  to  guar- 
antee its  permanent  value  and  success." — Tlie  Expositor. 

Cro\\"n  8vo.     S2.50  )tet. 

Christian  Ethics.   By  new^ian  smythe,  d.d. 

"As  this  book  is  the  latest,  so  it  is  the  fullest  and  most  attractive  treat- 
ment of  the  subject  that  we  are  familiar  with.  Patient  and  exhaustive 
in  its  method  of  inquiry,  and  stimulating  and  suggestive  in  the  topic  it 
handles,  we  are  confident  that  it  will  be  a  help  to  the  task  of  the  moral 
vinderstanding  and  interpretation  of  human  lijfe." — The  Liinng  Church. 

CrowTi  8vo.     $2.50  net. 

Apologetics;    or,    Christianity    Defensively    Stated. 

By  Alexander  B.\lmain  Bruce,  D.D. 

"  We  have  not  for  a  long  time  taken  a  book  in  hand  that  is  more 
stimulating  to  faith.  .  .  .  Without  commenting  further,  we  repeal  that 
this  volume  is  the  ablest,  most  scholarly,  most  advanced,  and  sharpest 
defence  of  Christianity  that  has  ever  been  wTitten.  No  theological 
Kbrary  should  be  without  it." — Zion's  Herald. 

CrowTi  Svo.     $2.50  net. 

Old  Testament  History,    by  henry  preserx^ed  smith,  d.d. 

"  Prof.  Smith  has,  by  his  comprehensive  and  vitalized  history,  laid  all  who 
care  for  the  Old  Testament  under  great  obligations." — TJie  Independent. 

Crown  Svo.     $2.50  net. 


The  International  Theological  Library 


VOLUMES  NOW  READY 

The  Theology  of  the  New  Testament.    By  george  b. 

Stevens,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

"  It  is  a  fine  example  of  painstaking,  discriminating,  impartial  research 
and  statement."— r/ze  Congregationalist.  Crown  8vo.     $2.50  net. 

History  of   Christian    Doctrine.    By  george  p.  fisher, 

D.D.,  LL.D. 

"  It  is  only  just  to  say  that  Dr.  Fisher  has  produced  the  best  History 
of  Doctrine  that  we  have  in  English." — The  New  York  Evangelist. 

Crown  8vo.     $2.50  net. 

The    Christian    Pastor   and   the    Working    Church. 

By  Washington  Gladden,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

"A  comprehensive,  inspiring  and  helpful  guide  to  a  busy  pastor.  One 
finds  in  it  a  multitude  of  practical  suggestions  for  the  development  of 
the  spiritual  and  working  life  of  the  Church,  and  the  answer  to  many 
problems  that  are  a  constant  perplexity  to  the  faithful  minister." 

— The  Christian  Intelligencer. 
Crown  8vo.     $2.50  7iet. 

Christian     Institutions.         By    Alexander  v.   B.   Allen,   D.D. 

"  Professor  Allen's  Christian  Institutions  may  be  regarded  as  the  most 
important  permanent  contribution  which  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  of  the  United  States  has  yet  made  to  general  theological 
thought." — Tlie  American  Journal  of  Theology. 

Crown  8vo.     $2.50  net. 

The  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament.    By  a  b.  damdson, 

D.D.,  LL.D.,  D.Litt. 

"  We  hope  every  clerg}'man  will  not  rest  content  until  he  has  procured 
and  studied  this  most  admirable  and  useful  book.  Every  really  useful 
question  relating  to  man  —  his  nature,  his  fall,  and  his  redemption, 
his  present  life  or  grace,  his  life  after  death,  his  future  life,  is 
treated  of." — The  Canadian  Chnrchman.  Crown  8vo.     $->  <o  net 

The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Salvation.    By  george  b. 

Stevens,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

"  Professor  Stevens  has  performed  a  task  of  great  importance,  certain  to 
exert  wide  and  helpful  influence  in  settling  the  minds  of  men.  He  has 
treated  the  subject  historically  and  has  given  to  Christ  the  first  place  in 
interpreting  his  own  mission." — Congregationalist  and  Christian  World. 

Crown  Svo.     $2.50  net. 


The  International  Theological  Library 


VOLUMES  NOW  READY 

The  Ancient  Catholic  Church.    By  Robert  rmny,  d.d.,  ll.d. 

"As  a  comprehensive  work  on  the  formative  stage  of  the  Church's  ex- 
perience the  volume  will  easily  find  its  place  in  the  front  rank  among 
books  on  the  subject  composed  in  the  English  language." — The  Interior. 

Crown  8vo.     $2.50  net. 

The  Reformation  in  Germany.     By  thomas  m.  lindsay, 

M.A.,  D.D. 

Crown  8vo.     $2.50  ttet. 

The  Reformation  in  Lands  Beyond  Germany.  ByTnoMAs 

M.  Lindsay,  D.D. 

"  Together  these  two  volumes  will  at  once  take  their  place  as  the  clas- 
sical English  History  of  the  Reformation." — The  Expository  Times. 

"  The  good  balance  of  material  which  he  has  attained  by  a  self-denying 
exclusion,  as  well  as  by  much  research  and  inclusion  of  fresh  material, 
makes  the  work  a  real  addition  to  our  materials  for  study." 

— The  Congregationalist. 

Crown  8vo.     $2.50  net. 

Canon  and  Text  of  the  New  Testament.    By  casper  rene 

Gregory,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

"The  book  is  a  treasury  of  learning,  and  its  fairness  in  dealing  with  the 
matter  in  hand  is  admirable.  From  first  to  last,  the  purpose  of  the 
author  is  not  to  show  upon  how  slight  basis  our  confidence  in  the  can- 
onicity  of  the  New  Testament  is  based,  but  rather  upon  how  solid  a 
foundation  our  confidence  rests." — Journal  and  Messenger. 

Crown  Svo.     $2.50  net. 

The  Greek  and  Eastern  Churches.    By  Walter  f.  adeney, 

M.A.,  D.D. 

Crown  Svo.     $2.50  net. 


The  International 

Critical  Commentary 

On  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments 


EDITORS'    PREFACE 

THERE  are  now  before  the  public  many  Commentaries, 
written  by  British  and  American  divines,  of  a  popular 
or  homiletical  character.  The  Cambridge  Bible  for 
Schools,  the  Handbooks  for  Bible  Classes  and  Private  Students, 
The  Speaker^ s  Conunentary ,  The  Popular  Commentary  (Schaff), 
The  Expositor  s  Bible,  and  other  similar  series,  have  their 
special  place  and  importance.  But  they  do  not  enter  into  the 
field  of  Critical  Biblical  scholarship  occupied  by  such  series  of 
Commentaries  as  the  Kurzgefasstes  exegetisches  Ha?idbuch  zum 
A.  T.  ;  De  Wette's  Kurzgefasstes  exegetisches  Handbuch  zum 
N.  T.  ;  Meyer's  Kritisch-exegetischer  Kommentar ;  Keil  and 
Delitzsch's  Biblischer  Commentar  fiber  das  A.  T. ;  Lange's 
Theologisch-homiletisches  Bibelwerk ;  Nowack's  Handkommentar 
zum  A.  T.  ;  Holtzmann's  Haiidkommentar  zum  N.  T.  Several 
of  these  have  been  translated,  edited,  and  in  some  cases  enlarged 
and  adapted,  for  the  English-speaking  public  ;  others  are  in 
process  of  translation.  But  no  corresponding  series  by  British 
or  American  divines  has  hitherto  been  produced.  The  way  has 
been  prepared  by  special  Commentaries  by  Cheyne,  Ellicott, 
Kalisch,  Lightfoot,  Perowne,  Westcott,  and  others;  and  the 
time  has  come,  in  the  judgment  of  the  projectors  of  this  enter- 
prise, when  it  is  practicable  to  combine  British  and  American 
scholars  in  the  production  of  a  critical,  comprehensive 
Commentary  that  will  be  abreast  of  modern  biblical  scholarship, 
and  in  a  measure  lead  its  van. 


The   International  Critical  Commentary 


Messrs.  Charles  Scribner's  Sons  of  New  York,  and  Messrs. 
T.  &  T.  Clark  of  Edinl)ur,;;h,  i)ropose  to  publish  such  a  series 
of  Commentaries  on  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  under  the 
editorship  of  Prof.  C.  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  in  America,  and 
of  Prof.  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  for  the  Old  Testament,  and 
the  Rev.  Alfred  Plummer,  D.D.,  for  the  New  Testament,  in 
Great  Britain. 

The  Commentaries  will  be  international  and  inter-confessional, 
and  will  be  free  from  polemical  and  ecclesiastical  bias.  They 
will  be  based  upon  a  thorough  critical  study  of  the  original  le.xts 
of  the  Bible,  and  upon  critical  methods  of  interpretation.  They 
are  designed  chiefly  for  students  and  clergymen,  and  will  be 
written  in  a  compact  style.  Each  book  will  be  preceded  by  an 
Introduction,  stating  the  results  of  criticism  upon  it,  and  discuss- 
ing impartially  the  questions  still  remaining  open.  The  details 
of  criticism  will  ap])ear  in  their  proper  place  in  the  body  of  the 
Commentary.  Each  section  of  the  Te.xt  will  be  introduced 
with  a  paraphrase,  or  summary  of  contents.  Technical  details 
of  textual  and  philological  criticism  will,  as  a  rule,  be  kept 
distinct  from  matter  of  a  more  general  character ;  and  in  the 
Old  Testament  the  exegetical  notes  will  be  arranged,  as  far  as 
possible,  so  as  to  be  serviceable  to  students  not  acquainted  with 
Hebrew.  The  History  of  Interpretation  of  the  Books  will  be 
dealt  with,  when  necessary,  in  the  Introductions,  with  critical 
notices  of  the  most  important  literature  of  the  subject.  Historical 
and  Archaeological  questions,  as  well  as  questions  of  Biblical 
Theology,  are  included  in  the  plan  of  the  Commentaries,  but 
not  Practical  or  Homiletical  Exegesis.  The  Volumes  will  con- 
stitute a  uniform  series. 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 


ARRANGEMENT   OF   VOLUMES   AND   AUTHORS 
THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

GENESIS.  The  Rev.  John  Skinner,  D.D.,  Principal  and  Professor  of 
Old  Testament  Language  and  Literature,  College  of  Presbyterian  Church 
of  England,  Cambridge,  England. 

EXODUS.  The  Rev.  A.  R.  S.  KENNEDY,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
University  of  Edinburgh. 

LEVITICUS.    J.  F.  Stenning,  M.A.,  Fellow  of  Wadham  College,  Oxford. 

NUMBERS.  The  Rev.  G.  BUCHANAN  Gray,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
Mansfield  College,  Oxford.  [Now  Ready. 

DEUTERONOMY.  The  Rev.  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Regius  Pro- 
fessor of  Hebrew,  Oxford.  [Now  Ready. 

JOSHUA.  The  Rev.  George  Adam  Smith,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of 
Hebrew,  United  Free  Church  College,  Glasgow, 

JUDGES.  The  Rev.  George  Moore,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Theol- 
ogy, Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  [Now  Ready. 

SAMUEL.  The  Rev.  H.  P.  Smith,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Old  Testament 
Literature  and  History  of  Religion,  Meadville,  Pa.  [Now  Ready. 

KINGS.  The  Rev.  Francis  Brown,  D.D.,  D.Litt,  LL.D.,  President 
and  Professor  of  Hebrew  and  Cognate  Languages,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York  City. 

CHRONICLES.  The  Rev.  Edward  L.  Curtis,  D.D.,  Professor  of 
Hebrew,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH.  The  Rev.  L.W.  Batten,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  Rector 
of  St.  Mark's  Church,  New  York  City,  sometime  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
P.  E.  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia. 

PSALMS.  The  Rev.  Chas.  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Graduafe  Fro- 
fessor  of  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Symbolics,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,   New  York.  [2  vols.     Now  Read'- 

PROVERBS.  The  Rev.  C.  H.  Toy,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  [Now  Ready. 

JOB.  The  Rev.  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Regius  Professor  of  He- 
brew, Oxford. 


The  International  Criticai.  Commentary 


ISAIAH.  Chaps.  I-XXXIX.  The  Rev.  G.  Buchanan  Gray,  D.D., 
Professor  of  Hebrew,  Mansfield  College,  Oxford. 

ISAIAH.      Chaps.  XL-LXVI.    The  Rev.  A.  S.  Peake,  M.A.,  D.D. ,  Dean 

of  the  Theological  Faculty  of  the  Victoria  University  and  Professor  of 
Biblical  Exegesis  in  the  University  of  Manchester,  England. 

JEREMIAH.  The  Rev.  A.  F.  Kirkpatrick,  D.D. ,  Dean  of  Ely,  sometime 
Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Cambridge,  England. 

EZEKIEL.  The  Rev.  G.  A.  Cooke,  M.A.,  Oriel  Professor  of  the  Inter- 
pretation of  Holy  Scripture,  University  of  Oxford,  and  the  Rev.  Chari.es  F. 
BuRNEY,  D.  Litt.,  Fellow  and  Lecturer  in  Hebrew,  St.  John's  College,  Oxford. 

DANIEL.  The  Rev.  John  P.  Peters,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  sometime  Professor 
of  Hebrew,  P.  E.  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia,  now  Rector  of  St. 
Michael's  Church,  New  York  City. 

AMOS  AND  HOSEA.  W.  R.  Harper,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  sometime  Presi- 
dent of  the  University  of  Chicago,  Illinois.  [^Nmu  Ready. 

MICAH  TO  HAGGAI.  Prof.  John  P.  Smith,  University  of  Chicago; 
Prof.  Charles  P.  Fagnani,  D.D.,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New 
York;  \V.  Hayes  Ward,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Editor  of  The  Independent,  New 
York;  Prof.  Julius  A.  Bewer,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York, 
and  Prof.  H.  G.  Mitchell,  D.D.,  Boston  University. 

ZECHARIAH  TO  JONAH.  Prof.  H.  G.  Mitchell,  D.D.,  Prof.  John 
P.  Smith  and  Prof.  J.  A.  Bewer. 

ESTHER.  The  Rev.  L.  B.  Baton,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Hart- 
ford Theological  Seminary.  \No'w  Ready. 

ECCLESIASTES.  Prof.  George  A.  Barton,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Bibli- 
cal Literature,  Bryn  Mawr  College,  Pa.  {Now  Ready. 

RUTH,  SONG  OF  SONGS  AND  LAMENTATIONS.  Rev.  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Professor  of  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Sym- 
bolics, Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT 

ST.  MATTHEW.    The  Rev.  WiLLOUGHBY  C.  Ai.LEN,  M.A.,   Fellow  and 
Lecturer  in  Theology  and  Hebrew,  Exeter  College,  Oxford.       [Now  Ready. 

ST.  MARK.     Rev.  E.  P.  Goui.D,  D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  New  Testa- 
ment  Literature,    P.  E.  Divinity  School,    Philadelphia.  [AIjw  Ready. 

ST.  LUKE.    The    Rev.    Ai.erei)    Plummer,    D.D.,    sometime   Master  of 
University  College,  Durham.  [Ncnv  Ready. 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 


ST.  JOHN.  The  Very  Rev.  John  Henry  Bernard,  D.D.,  Dean  of  St. 
Patrick's  and  Lecturer  in  Divinity,  University  of  Dublin. 

HARMONY  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  The  Rev.  William  Sanday,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  Lady  Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity,  O.xford,  ana  the  Rev.  WiL- 
LOUGHBY  C.  Allen,  M.A.,  Fellow  and  Lecturer  in  Divinity  and  Hebrew, 
Exeter  College,  Oxford. 

ACTS.  The  Rev.  C.  H.  Turner,  D.D.,  Fellow  of  Magdalen  College, 
Oxford,  and  the  Rev.  H.  N.  Bate,  M.A.,  Examining  Chaplain  to  the 
Bishop  of  London. 

ROMANS.  The  Rev.  William  Sanday,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Lady  Margaret 
Professor  of  Divinity  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford,  and  the  Rev. 
A.  C.  Headlam,  M.A.,  D.D.,  Principal  of  King's  College,  London. 

[A'(?w  Ready. 

CORINTHIANS.  The  Right  Rev.  Arch.  Rohkrtson,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Lord 
Bishop  of  Exeter,  the  Rev.  Alfred  Plummer,  D.D.,and  Dawson  Walker, 
D.D.,  Theological  Tutor  in  the  University  of  Durham. 

GALATIANS.  The  Rev.  ERNEST  D.  BURTON,  D.D.,  Professor  of  New 
Testament  Literature,  University  of  Chicago. 

EPHESIANS  AND  COLOSSIANS.  The  Rev.  T.  K.  Abbott,  B.D., 
D.Litt.,  sometime  Professor  of  Biblical  Greek,  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  now 
Librarian  of  the  same.  \^h^cnv  Ready. 

PHILIPPIANS  AND  PHiLEMON.  The  Rev.  Marvin  R.  Vincent, 
D.  D.,  Professor  of  Biblical  Literature,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New 
York  City.  \Nmu  Ready. 

THESSALONIANS.  The  Rev.  James  E.  Frame,  M.A.,  Professor  of 
Biblical  Theology,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 

THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  The  Rev.  Walter  LocK,  D.D.,  Warden 
of  Keble  College  and  Professor  of  Exegesis,  Oxford. 

HEBREWS.  The  Rev.  A.  Nairne,  M.A.,  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  King's 
College,  London. 

ST.  JAMES.  The  Rev.  James  H.  Ropes,  D.D.,  Bussey  Professor  of  New 
Testament  Criticism  in  Harvard  University. 

PETER  AND  JUDE.  The  Rev.  Charles  Bigg,  D.D.,  sometime  Regius 
Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 

\_N^cnv  Ready. 

THE  EPISTLES  OF  ST.  JOHN.  The  Rev.  E.  A.  Brooke,  B.D.,  Fellow 
and  Divinity  Lecturer  in  King's  College,  Cambridge. 

REVELATION.  The  Rev.  ROBERT  H.  Charles,  M.  A.,  D.D. ,  sometime 
Professor  of  Biblical  Creek  in  the  University  of  Dublin. 


The 
International  Critical  Commentary 


VOLUMES  NOW  READY 

Numbers.    By  the  Rev.  G.  Buchanan  Gray,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 

Mansfield  College,  Oxford. 

"  Most  Bible  readers  have  the  impression  that  '  Numbers '  is  a  dull 
book  only  relieved  by  the  brilliancy  of  the  Balaam  chapters  and  some 
snatches  of  old  Hebrew  songs,  but,  as  Prof.  Gray  shows  with  admirable 
skill  and  insight,  its  historical  and  religious  value  is  not  that  which  lies 
on  the  surface.  Prof.  Gray's  Commentary  is  distinguished  by  fine 
scholarship  and  sanity  of  judgm.ent;  it  is  impossible  to  commend  it  too 
warmly." — Saturday  Review  (London). 

Crown  8vo.     $3.00  net. 

Deuteronomy.       By  the   Rev.  S.  R.  driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Regius 
Professor  of  Hebrew,  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 

"  It  is  a  pleasure  to  see  at  last  a  really  critical  Old  Testament  com- 
mentary in  English  upon  a  portion  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  especially 
one  of  such  merit.  This  I  find  superior  to  any  other  Commentary  in 
any  language  upon  Deuteronomy." 

Professor  E.  L.  Curtis,  of  Yale  University. 
Crown  8vo.     $3.00  net. 

Judges.      By  Rev.  George  Foot  Moore,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of 
Theology  in  Harvard  University. 

"  The  work  is  done  in  an  atmosphere  of  scholarly  interest  and  in- 
difference to  dogmatism  and  controversy,  which  is  at  least  refreshing. 
...  It  is  a  noble  introduction  to  the  moral  forces,  ideas  and  influences 
that  controlled  the  period  of  the  Judges,  and  a  model  of  what  a 
historical  commentary,  with  a  practical  end  in  view,  should  be." 

— The  Independent. 
Crown  8vo.     $3.00  net. 

The    Books    of    Samuel.  By  Rev.  Henry  preserved  smith,  D.D., 

Professor  of  Old  Testament  Literature  and  History  of  Religion,  Meadville,  Pa. 

"  Professor  Smith's  Commentary  will  for  some  time  be  the  standard 
work  on  Samuel,  and  we  heartily  congratulate  him  on  scholarly  work 
so  faithfully  accomplished." — The  Athenceiim. 

Crown  8vo.     $3.00  net. 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 


VOLUMES  NOW  READY 

The  Book  of    Psalms.      By    Charlks  Augustus   Briggs,   D.D., 

D.Litt.,  (iraduato  Professor  of  Theological  Encyclopa:dia  and  Symbolics, 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York,  and  Emilie  Grace  Briggs,  B.D. 

"  Christian  scholarship  seems  here  to  have  reached  the  highest  level  yet 
attained  in  study  of  the  book  which  in  religious  importance  stands  next 
to  the  Gospels.  His  work  upon  it  is  not  likely  to  be  excelled  in  learning, 
both  massive  and  minute,  by  any  volume  of  the  International  Series,  to 
which  it  belongs." — The  Outlook. 

2  Volumes.    Crown  8vo.    Price,  $3,00  each  net. 

Proverbs.      By  the  Rev.  Crawford  H.  Toy,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of 
Hebrew  in  Harvard  University. 

"This  volume  has  the  same  characteristics  of  thoroughness  and  pains- 
taking scholarship  as  the  preceding  issues  of  the  series.  In  the  critical 
treatment  of  the  text,  in  noting  the  various  readings  and  the  force  of 
the  words  in  the  original  Hebrew,  it  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired. 

Crown  8vo.     $^.00  net. 


Amos  and  HoSea.  By  William  Rainey  harper,  Ph.D.,  LL.D., 
late  Professor  of  Semitic  Languages  and  Literature  and  President  of  the 
University  of  Chicago. 

"  He  has  gone,  with  characteristic  minuteness,  not  only  into  the  analysis 
and  discussion  of  each  point,  endeavoring  in  every  case  to  be  thoroughly 
exhaustive,  but  also  into  the  history  of  exegesis  and  discussion.  Nothing 
at  all  worthy  of  consideration  has  been  passed  by.  The  consequence  is 
that  when  one  carefully  studies  what  has  been  brought  together  in  this 
volume,  either  upon  some  passage  of  the  two  prophets  treated,  or  upon 
some  question  of  critical  or  antiquarian  importance  in  the  introductory 
portion  of  the  volume,  one  feels  that  he  has  obtained  an  adequately 
exhaustive  view  of  the  subject." — The  Interior. 

Crown  8vo.     $voo  net. 


Esther.         By    L.    B.    Paton,  Ph.D.,    Professor   of    Hebrew,    Ha-  ford 
Theological  Seminary. 

This  scholarly  and  critical  commentary  on  the  Book  of  Esther  presents 
in  full  the  remarkable  additions  to  the  MassoVetic  text  and  the  varia- 
tions in  the  \'arious  versions  beginning  with  the  Greek  translation  and 
continuing  through  the  Vulgate  and  Peshitto  down  to  the  Talmud  and 
Targums.  These  are  not  given  in  full  in  any  other  commentary,  yet 
they  are  very  important  l)oth  fcr  the  history  of  the  text  and  the  history 
of  the  exegesis. 

Crown   Sv;).     $2.25  net  (Postage  additional). 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 


VOLUMES  NOW  READY 

EcclesiaSteS.  By  George  a.  barton,  Ph.O.,  Professor  of  Biblical 
Literature,  Bryn  Mawr  College,  Pa. 

"  It  is  a  relief  to  find  a  commentator  on  Ecclesiastes  who  is  not  en- 
deavoring to  defend  some  new  theory.  This  volume,  in  the  International 
Commentary  series,  treats  the  book  in  a  scholarly  and  sensible  fashion, 
presenting  the  conclusions  of  earlier  scholars  together  with  the  author's 
own,  and  providing  thus  all  the  information  that  any  student  needs." 

— The  Congregationalist. 
Crown  8vo.     $2.25  net  (Postage  additional). 

St.  Matthew.  By  the  Rev.  Willoughby  C.  Allen,  M.A.,  Fellow 
of  Exeter  College,  Oxford. 

"As  a  microscopic  and  practically  exhaustive  study  and  itemized  state- 
ment of  the  probable  or  possible  sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  and 
of  their  relations,  one  to  another,  this  work  has  not  been  surpassed. 
I  doubt  if  it  has  been  equaled.  And  the  author  is  not  by  any  means 
lacking  in  spiritual  insight." — The  Methodist  Review  (Nashville). 

Crown  8vo.     $3.00  net. 

St.  Mark.  By  the  Rev.  E.  P.  Gould,  D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  New 
Testament  Exegesis,  P.  E.  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia. 

"  The  whole  make-up  is  that  of  a  thoroughly  helpful,  instructive  critical 
study  of  the  Word,  surpassing  anything  of  the  kind  ever  attempted  in 
the  English  language,  and  to  students  and  clergymen  knowing  the 
proper  use  of  a  commentary  it  will  prove  an  invaluable  aid." 

— The  Liitheran  Quarterly. 
Crown  8vo.     $2.50  net. 

ijt.  Luke.  By  the  Rev.  Alfred  Plummer,  D.D.,  sometime  Master  of 
University  College,  Durham. 

"  We  are  pleased  with  the  thoroughness  and  scientific  accuracy  of  the 
interpretations.  ...  It  seems  to  us  that  the  prevailing  characteristic  of 
the  book  is  common  sense,  fortified  by  learning  and  piety." 

— The  Herald  and  Presbyter. 
Crown  Svo.     $3.00  net. 

ROi  lanS.  By  the  Rev.  William  Sanday,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Lady  Margaret 
Professor  of  Divinity,  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford,  and  the  Rev. 
A.  C.  Headlam,  M.A.,  I'.D.,  Principal  of  Kings  College,  London. 

"  We  do  not  hesitate  to  commend  this  as  the  best  commentary  on  Romans 
yet  written  in  English.  It  will  do  much  to  popularize  this  admirable 
and  much  needed  series,  by  showing  that  it  is  possible  to  be  critical  and 
scholarly  and  at  the  same  time  devout  and  spiritual,  and  intelligible  to 
plain  Bible  readers." — The  Church  Standard. 

Crown  Svo.     $^.00  net. 


The  International  Critical  Commentar^^ 


VOLUMES  NOW  READY 

Ephesians  and  Colossians.    By  the  Rev.  t.  k.  abbott, 

D.Litt.,  formerly  Professor  of   Biblical  Greek,  now  of  Hebrew,  Trinil 
lege,  Dublin. 

"An  able  and  independent  piece  of  exegesis,  and  one  that  none  of 
afford  to  be  without.     It  is  the  work  of  a  man  who  has  made  V 
master  of  this  theme.     His  exegetical  perceptions  are  keen,  and 
esjiecially  grateful  for  his  strong  defense  of  the  integrity  and  apos 
of  these  two  great  monuments  of  Pauline  teaching." — The  Expos 

Crown  8vo.     $2. 


Philippians  and  Philemon.    By  rcv.  marvin  r.  vincent, 

Professor  of  Biblical  Literature  ia  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New 

"  Professor  Vincent's  Commentary  appears  to  me  not  less  admir;        ''  - 
its  literary  merit  than  for  its  scholarship  and  its  clear  and  discrimi..  if 
discussions  of  the  contents  of  these  Epistles." — Dr.  George  P.  Fisii  ■ 

Crown  8vo.     $2.(  _     ; .' 

St.    Peter    and    St.    Jude.      By   the   Rev.   Charles   Bigg,      ) 
sometime    Regius    Professor   of   Ecclesiastical    History  in   the   Univi  ■  -;  /, 
New  York. 

"  The  careful  and  thorough  student  will  find  here  a  vast  amount  <  ; 
formation  most  helpful  to  him  in  his  studies  and  researches.  The  . 
national  Critical  Commentary,  to  which  it  belongs,  will  prove  a  . 
boon  to  students  and  ministers." — The  Canadian  Congregationali^:. 

Crown  8vo.     $2.50  net. 


\^);  -2 


,.aa 

-•  -aldf 


COLUMBIA  UNtVERSITY 

0035518871 


955.4 


AdS 


BRITTLE  DO  HOT 
PHOTOCOPY 


